According to a recent report by 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 last year. Clearly, the content of these reviews is not reaching enough of our prospective viewers. Thus, the problem lies not in the quality of our movies but with public's lack of awareness that movies of good quality are available. Super Screen should therefore allocate a greater quantity of its budget next year to reaching the public through advertising.
In this argument, a director of the Super Screen Movie Production Company states that the way to fight with the decrease in the Super Screen-produced movies viewers is to greatly invest in the advertising of these movies. At the superficial look, the argument sounds legitimate. However, by taking a deep investigation into the content upon which the argument is built, it is clear that the claim is untenable due to the absence of crucial facts and clarification that would make this argument logically correct.
First of all, there is no quantitative analysis presented in the content of the argument. It is stated that the report from a marketing department of Super Screen Movie Production Company revealed that in the last year fewer people attended the movie of the Super Screen production. This information is greatly insufficient to serve as a supportive companent of the argument. There is a need of the quantitative piece of evidence that would show that the difference between the number of viewers last year is significantly higher than that of today. If there movie production gathers a million of viewers, for example, and the difference between the last year and this year is only 100 viewers, than this decrease is insignificant and unsupportive of the argument.
Secondly, the director of the company states claims that the percentage of the positive reviews of the Super Screen movies increased during the past year. From this piece of evidence, the director concludes that people are simply don't see these pisitive reviews and thus don't pay attention to the movies of this company. However, this conclusion cannot be concrete. Without specific details needed, the statement is seriously undermined and weakens the argument even more. The author of the argument simply assumes that everyone always reads the reviews before choosing to watch a movie. It is clearly incorrect way of thinking. There are many factors that influence the drawing of a person to watch a movie, including the cast members, movie poster, and many more. Therefore, without a legitimate proof that no other factors impact people's choice to skip on watching the movies produced by Super Screen production company, the claim cannot be held true.
Lastly, the director assumes that the quality of their movies isn't the reason for the decrease in the movie viewers. The lack of awareness, as stated by the author, is the true reason for this decrease. The conclusive decision by the director on the way to go about this problem is the increased investment in the advertisement of the movies. Although it might hold true, there are still certain clarifications required to proove the legitimacy of this piece of the argument. It is unclear whether or not the quality of the movies is that great. It might be, for example, that the reason behind the decreased number of viewers is due to the unpopular cast members that are presented in the movies. Therefore, the director should shine the clearer light on the facts that could prove that the quality of the movies is that great, and that it does not serve as the reason behind the decreasing number of the viewers.
Unlimately, without proper factual basis, the argument that the Super Screen Movie Production Company should invest a lot of its budget on advertisement fails to be believable. The argument would greatly benifit from the incorporation of quantitative data, facts on the strengths of the quality of the movies, and other factual information.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-12-24 | Cynic | 43 | view |
| 2019-12-14 | nimesh94 | 42 | view |
| 2019-12-14 | mcmaster | 33 | view |
| 2019-12-10 | pooja.kakde@gmail.com | 59 | view |
| 2019-11-28 | a251ravind | 63 | view |
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Sentence: This information is greatly insufficient to serve as a supportive companent of the argument.
Error: companent Suggestion: component
Sentence: If there movie production gathers a million of viewers, for example, and the difference between the last year and this year is only 100 viewers, than this decrease is insignificant and unsupportive of the argument.
Error: unsupportive Suggestion: No alternate word
Sentence: From this piece of evidence, the director concludes that people are simply don't see these pisitive reviews and thus don't pay attention to the movies of this company.
Error: pisitive Suggestion: positive
Sentence: Although it might hold true, there are still certain clarifications required to proove the legitimacy of this piece of the argument.
Error: proove Suggestion: prove
Sentence: The argument would greatly benifit from the incorporation of quantitative data, facts on the strengths of the quality of the movies, and other factual information.
Error: benifit Suggestion: benefit
---------------
argument 1 -- not OK
argument 2 -- not OK
argument 3 -- OK
----------------
samples:
https://www.testbig.com/gmatgre-argument-task-essays/following-taken-me…
----------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 2.0 out of 6
Category: Poor Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 5 2
No. of Sentences: 25 15
No. of Words: 580 350
No. of Characters: 2859 1500
No. of Different Words: 226 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.907 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.929 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.691 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 217 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 158 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 101 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 60 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 23.2 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.495 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.48 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.324 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.495 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.08 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 231, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
...rector concludes that people are simply dont see these pisitive reviews and thus don...
^^^^
Line 3, column 272, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
...ont see these pisitive reviews and thus dont pay attention to the movies of this com...
^^^^
Line 3, column 399, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ncrete. Without specific details needed, the statement is seriously undermined an...
^^
Line 4, column 63, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: isn't
...ssumes that the quality of their movies isnt the reason for the decrease in the movi...
^^^^
Line 4, column 490, Rule ID: WHETHER[7]
Message: Perhaps you can shorten this phrase to just 'whether'. It is correct though if you mean 'regardless of whether'.
Suggestion: whether
...is piece of the argument. It is unclear whether or not the quality of the movies is that great...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, however, if, lastly, look, second, secondly, so, still, therefore, thus, for example, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 27.0 19.6327345309 138% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.9520958084 85% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 23.0 13.6137724551 169% => OK
Pronoun: 44.0 28.8173652695 153% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 82.0 55.5748502994 148% => OK
Nominalization: 35.0 16.3942115768 213% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2920.0 2260.96107784 129% => OK
No of words: 577.0 441.139720559 131% => OK
Chars per words: 5.06065857886 5.12650576532 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.90110439584 4.56307096286 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.75194481993 2.78398813304 99% => OK
Unique words: 237.0 204.123752495 116% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.410745233969 0.468620217663 88% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 902.7 705.55239521 128% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 4.96107784431 161% => OK
Article: 13.0 8.76447105788 148% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.67365269461 239% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 7.0 4.22255489022 166% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 25.0 19.7664670659 126% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 22.8473053892 101% => OK
Sentence length SD: 55.4768420154 57.8364921388 96% => OK
Chars per sentence: 116.8 119.503703932 98% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.08 23.324526521 99% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.2 5.70786347227 74% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 5.25449101796 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 8.20758483034 158% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.88822355289 131% => OK
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: 0.316195380536 0.218282227539 145% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0883577134349 0.0743258471296 119% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.121691210319 0.0701772020484 173% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.181858771366 0.128457276422 142% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0837820236571 0.0628817314937 133% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.9 14.3799401198 97% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 48.13 48.3550499002 100% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.197005988 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.36 12.5979740519 98% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.03 8.32208582834 96% => OK
difficult_words: 119.0 98.500998004 121% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.0 12.3882235529 121% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.1389221557 101% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => 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.