According to a recent report from our marketing department, during the past year, fewer people attended Super Screen-produced movies than in any other year. And yet the percentage of positive reviews by movie reviewers about specific Super Screen movies actually increased during the past year. Clearly, the contents of these reviews are not reaching enough of our prospective viewers. Thus, the problem lies not with the quality of our movies but with the public's lack of awareness that movies of good quality are available. Super Screen should, therefore, allocate a greater share of its budget next year to reaching the public through advertising."
Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the recommendation and the argument on which it is based are reasonable. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the recommendation.
In the memo from the advertisement director, it is stated that problem with the less occupancy of Super-Screen produced movies is because of public's lack of awareness that movies of good quality are available, and hence director concludes by allocating a greater share of budget for advertising of movies. However, before this recommendation can be properly evaluated, two questions must be answered.
First of all, director blindly assumes there is no problem with the content of movies. perhaps, details regarding movies are reaching public and the public hate the domain of movies produced by Super Screen. further, if public are interested in action movies with lots of stunts and the Super Screen produced movies that lack in action. Hence, public may avoid those movies. If the above scenario has merit, then conclusion drawn in the original argument is significantly weakened.
Secondly, director based his assumptions from the positive reviews given by reviewers. perhaps, the reviews given by the critics are "biased" and maybe the reviews are given by the peer pressure of movie producers even though the movie is significantly flawed and based on these bogus reviews if the director increases his advertisement expenditure he may incur severe losses. If the above is true, then the argument does not hold water.
In conclusion, the argument as it stands now, is considerably flawed due to its reliance on unwarranted assumptions given above. If the author is able to give more evidence, then it will be possible to fully evaluate the viability of the proposed recommendation of increasing advertisement revenue for reaching the public.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-12-07 | Venkateshwar | 50 | view |
| 2019-11-25 | Venkateshwar | 23 | view |
| 2019-11-25 | Smrithi B R | 33 | view |
| 2019-11-09 | sampath srini | 50 | view |
| 2019-11-01 | harshalg007 | 42 | view |
- The real talent of a popular musician cannot accurately be assessed until the musician has been dead for several generations, so that his or her fame does not interfere with honest assessment. 66
- People who have the talent to develop their own ideas may not be able to contribute much to the society if they are unable to present their skills in a suitable manner. On the other hand, people who have the inborn talent to recognize and coordinate the s 16
- Science is meaningless without religion. 58
- The best way for a society to prepare its young people for leadership in government, industry, or other fields is by instilling in them a sense of cooperation, not competition. 50
- A nation should require all of its students to study the same national curriculum until they enter college. 33
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: 9 15
No. of Words: 262 350
No. of Characters: 1354 1500
No. of Different Words: 142 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.023 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.168 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.822 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 107 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 76 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 57 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 30 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 29.111 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 19.313 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 1 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.379 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.638 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.094 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 98, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... that problem with the less occupancy of Super-Screen produced movies is because ...
^^
Line 3, column 88, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Perhaps
... no problem with the content of movies. perhaps, details regarding movies are reaching ...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 209, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Further
...ain of movies produced by Super Screen. further, if public are interested in action mov...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 88, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Perhaps
...he positive reviews given by reviewers. perhaps, the reviews given by the critics are &...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 449, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... then the argument does not hold water. In conclusion, the argument as it stands...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, hence, however, if, may, regarding, second, secondly, then, in conclusion, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 19.6327345309 81% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 12.9520958084 39% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 11.1786427146 45% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 3.0 13.6137724551 22% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 13.0 28.8173652695 45% => OK
Preposition: 38.0 55.5748502994 68% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 16.3942115768 61% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1404.0 2260.96107784 62% => OK
No of words: 262.0 441.139720559 59% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.35877862595 5.12650576532 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.02323427807 4.56307096286 88% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.99001894213 2.78398813304 107% => OK
Unique words: 147.0 204.123752495 72% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.56106870229 0.468620217663 120% => OK
syllable_count: 449.1 705.55239521 64% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 4.96107784431 20% => OK
Article: 2.0 8.76447105788 23% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 19.7664670659 61% => 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: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 82.8316146703 57.8364921388 143% => OK
Chars per sentence: 117.0 119.503703932 98% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.8333333333 23.324526521 94% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.83333333333 5.70786347227 137% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 5.0 5.25449101796 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.88822355289 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.67664670659 21% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.235739168115 0.218282227539 108% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0782521104232 0.0743258471296 105% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0985046554652 0.0701772020484 140% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.131618364108 0.128457276422 102% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0795472428799 0.0628817314937 127% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.7 14.3799401198 102% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 41.7 48.3550499002 86% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 12.197005988 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.81 12.5979740519 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.2 8.32208582834 111% => OK
difficult_words: 75.0 98.500998004 76% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 12.3882235529 97% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.