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 author present case concerning Super Screen-movies. He based on unsubstantiated assumtpions and limited data, advises the production company to expand their advertisement. However the want of veritable information and unwarranted assumptions makes the argument incredible.

The first problem with the argument is the vague terminology and unsubanstiated reports. The author opines that according to a recent report, during the past year, fewer people attended the Super Screen-produced mvoies than in any other year. However the term fewer is troubling as it adds an element of ambiguity. Precisely how many people saw the movies this year and in the past? This question can help resolve the issue.

Next the author states that the percentage of positive reviews by movie reviewers about specific movies have actually increase. Here the author fails to validate the authenticity of the report. How accurate is it? This question has to answered in order to further evaluate the argument. Also the term percenatge and specific is ambivalent. If suppose only 2-3 films review have increased then the whole argument falls apart. Or perhaps previously only 100 people watched the film and it got 50 positive reviews which can be considered 50 percent, on the other hand this year only 75 people watched the film, out of which 50 people gave good reviews. This also belies the authors argument. Thus the author should have addressed previously mentioned queries to ratify the claim.

Finally the author suggest that the problem lies not with the quality but with the publics lack of awareness. Thus he proposes to allocate a greater share of its budget next year to advertising. However the conlusion is flawed as the author supposition is fallacious. He neglects to consider that there could be other reasons besides the public awareness that could lead to fewer audience. Perhaps the quality has increased but it could happen the interest in the particular genre of Super Screen movies has dwindled. Thus the author's neglect to contemplate on other possibilities make the argument untenable.Even if the cause is the lack of public awareness, how can the advertisement increase the spectators? Is there no other way to garner the public attention? The author has to answer this question in order to properly analyze the passage.

Thus the argument can't be assessed as it lacks requisite information. The author should have answered certain question and cited varied evidence to bolster the conclusion. Their lack make the assumptions unreasonable. As a result, the recommendation of the author to allocate more resources to the adverstisement in order to increase awareness among public, is dubious.