The following is taken from a memo from the advertising director of the Super Screen Movie Production Company.
"According to a recent report from our marketing department, during the past year, fewer people attended, Super Screen movies produced than in any other year. And yet the percentage of positive movie review about Super Screen produced movie increased during the past year. Clearly, the contents of these positive movie reviews are not reaching enough prospective viewers. Thus, the problem lies not within the quality of the movie, but with publics lack of awareness that good quality movies are available. Super Screen should therefore allocate a greater share of its budget next year to reach the public through advertising".
In the memo to the advertising director of the Super Screen Movie Production Company, the author initiates by stating, that even though movie produced by the production company are of good quality, but still fewer people attended the movies produced by the production house this year than any other past years. In conclusion, the author states that, super screen production company should allocate a greater share of the budget to advertising so that more audience can be attracted. However, this conclusion, stated by the author can be dramatically weaken if the following two assumptions hold true.
First of all, it is likely possible that the company has increased the ticket cost to attend the screening, and people have to burn their pockets to attend the screening of the movie produced by the Super Screen Movie Production company. Thus, people did not prefer watching the screening of the movie by paying a cost that isn't feasible to their own budget. Although, the author has stated that the movie reviews are positive and increased during the past year, but one can very likely assume that if the movie ticket price has increased substantially in comparison to the previous year then, it is likely to think that people are not willing to spend more for a movie even though it holds a good review. In such a condition advertising the brand name of the production house will probably not attract the viewers, but will only incur more cost to the production house, which may again lead the production house to make their tickets more expensive, in order to balance the amount of money they spent in advertising.
Secondly, the author presumes that the audience, is not aware about the good quality of the movie that are being created by the production house. Here, one can likely think the possibility that, although the movies are of good quality but the movie doesn't features a star celebrity which the audiences covet during the screening. Probably, the production house is making movies by taking the new stars who are not that well-known as the high rated celebrities. Due to this, the audience, has curtailed their attendance, to the movie screening produced super screen movie production company. It is also possible that, people may have other means to see the screening later, like illegally downloading the movie or piracy mechanism which has led the audiences curtail their attendance to the production house for a movie screening.
In conclusion, it can be said that the data presented here is not sufficient and can dramatically weaken the author's conclusion. Firstly, we need more insight about, what changes were made in the price of the tickets for attending a screening of the movie at the Super Screen Movie Production Company?. Secondly, does the movie features the star or a highly designated celebrity, that audience wishes to view in a movie from the production company, Or do people have other means of watching the screening through piracy, which has led the decline in number of people attending the screening? If more light can be thrown upon the reason for concluding the reason for audience decline, only then a substantially strong ground of conclusion can be made, other the argument is flawed and does not holds water!.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-01-18 | YO | 37 | view |
| 2020-01-03 | Daffodilia | 59 | view |
| 2019-12-27 | kook | 40 | view |
| 2019-12-11 | sefeliz | 55 | view |
| 2019-12-07 | farhadmoqimi | 58 | view |
Comments
Essay evaluation report
samples:
https://www.testbig.com/gmatgre-argument-task-essays/following-taken-me…
----------------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: ??? out of 6
Category: Poor Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 16 15
No. of Words: 547 350
No. of Characters: 2659 1500
No. of Different Words: 215 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.836 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.861 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.536 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 184 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 126 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 96 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 66 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 34.188 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 13.187 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.875 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.419 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.577 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.133 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 325, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: isn't
...ning of the movie by paying a cost that isnt feasible to their own budget. Although...
^^^^
Line 5, column 250, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...ovies are of good quality but the movie doesnt features a star celebrity which the aud...
^^^^^^
Line 7, column 110, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...ficient and can dramatically weaken the authors conclusion. Firstly, we need more insig...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 329, Rule ID: DOES_NP_VBZ[1]
Message: Did you mean 'feature'?
Suggestion: feature
...tion Company?. Secondly, does the movie features the star or a highly designated celebri...
^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 794, Rule ID: DOES_X_HAS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'hold'? As 'do' is already inflected, the verb cannot also be inflected.
Suggestion: hold
...her the argument is flawed and does not holds water!.
^^^^^
Line 7, column 794, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[3]
Message: The verb 'does' requires base form of the verb: 'hold'
Suggestion: hold
...her the argument is flawed and does not holds water!.
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, still, then, thus, well, in conclusion, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.6327345309 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.9520958084 108% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 11.1786427146 98% => OK
Relative clauses : 20.0 13.6137724551 147% => OK
Pronoun: 30.0 28.8173652695 104% => OK
Preposition: 61.0 55.5748502994 110% => OK
Nominalization: 24.0 16.3942115768 146% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2723.0 2260.96107784 120% => OK
No of words: 545.0 441.139720559 124% => OK
Chars per words: 4.99633027523 5.12650576532 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.83169070408 4.56307096286 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.62018991082 2.78398813304 94% => OK
Unique words: 229.0 204.123752495 112% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.420183486239 0.468620217663 90% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 833.4 705.55239521 118% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 4.96107784431 161% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.76447105788 68% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 5.0 1.67365269461 299% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 7.0 4.22255489022 166% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 19.7664670659 81% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 34.0 22.8473053892 149% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 74.8698871376 57.8364921388 129% => OK
Chars per sentence: 170.1875 119.503703932 142% => OK
Words per sentence: 34.0625 23.324526521 146% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.4375 5.70786347227 130% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 6.0 5.25449101796 114% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.20758483034 134% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 6.88822355289 29% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.67664670659 64% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.348311785364 0.218282227539 160% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.136019213821 0.0743258471296 183% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.109701998115 0.0701772020484 156% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.238813928642 0.128457276422 186% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0377914693097 0.0628817314937 60% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 19.1 14.3799401198 133% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 45.43 48.3550499002 94% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.4 12.197005988 126% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.31 12.5979740519 98% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.28 8.32208582834 99% => OK
difficult_words: 102.0 98.500998004 104% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 12.3882235529 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 15.6 11.1389221557 140% => OK
text_standard: 16.0 11.9071856287 134% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.