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-produced movies than in any

The advertising director of the Super Screen Movie Production Company states in the argument provided that according to a recent report, fewer people are attending the movies produced by the company. According to the director, the major reason for this lesser participation of people is the lack of advertisement. The problem lies not with the quality of movies but due to the lack of awareness to the movies produced. On first look, the argument seems to be well presented but on further speculation, it is found that due to certain gaps and flaws in the argument, it is not logically convincing.

Firstly, it is stated that according to a recent report from the marketing department, during the past year fewer people attended the Super Screen produced movies than in any other year. The criterion for the report presented is not specified like whether the report is presented on the basis of a survey conducted. If a survey was conducted, then the number of people who participated in the survey, the demographics of those who responded to the survey, the type of questions asked in the survey, and whether the questions were objective that is just a yes or no response; or subjective that is going in specific details of the subject as well as the response.

Further, it is stated that the percentage of positive reviews actually increased during the past year. Here too there are gaps in the information provided. The percentage of the positive reviewers is not specified. If the earlier percentage was 10 and now it is 12, so the increase is just 2 percent and does not effect much. But if the current percentage is 60, then there is an appreciable increase. So, this aspect needs to be clearly stated. Moreover, it also depend on the base figure, that is the number of people involved in reviewing process.

Moreover, it has been provided that the quality of movies is good and it is the lack of awareness on the part of the public, that the movies are not a big success. A probable reason for this can be that the people are aware of the movies but they are not interested in the subject of the movies or rather more interesting and better movies from other productions are available. Another possibility, can be that the interests of people in movies have reduced and they are adopting other means of recreation that are better as well as healthy than watching movies. In all these cases, the solution is not in allocating a greater share of the company's budget in advertising.

So, due to these gaps and flaws in the information provided, the argument is not logically convincing. Had the author provided complete information on the details of the report or the survey conducted, the demograph of the reviewers, and the probable causes for lesser involvement of people in attending Super Screen produced movies, a condign and proper conclusion could be drawn.