The following is taken from a memo from the advertising director of super screen movie production company.
"According to a recent report from our marketing department, during the past year, fewer people attended super scree-produced movies than in any other year. And yet the percentage of positive reviews by the 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.
The conclusion derived from the argument by the author that Super screen should allocate a greater share of its budget next year in order to reach the public through advertising is flawed. The author not only arrived to a very strong conclusion based on lack of numerical data but also building strong claims based on ambiguous terms like "few", "positive reviews", "enough viewers", etc.
As per argument, author presumes that, just because the percentage of positive reviews have increase, means the movie is good. Since the author has not mentioned anything about the number of positive reviews, negative reviews and total reviews, this fails to substantiate the fact that the movie is actually good and greater share of budget needs to be allocated for advertising. For example, if positive review in previous years are 50 and total reviews are 100 which make up to 50% positive review. And, for the current year, if only 5 people reviewed about the movie of which 3 are positive then the percentage of positive reviews are 60% i.e. greater than that of last year. Since, there is large gap between number of poeple reviewed the movie, author's conclusion is not substantiated.
Additionally, author insubstantiatedly assumes that the people who reviewed the movie this year are the same who actually watched the movie. There is no proof mentioned for the same. This could be possible that the positive review are mentioned by the people working at the same production house which produce super screen-produced movie as a marketing strategy. If this is true, then super screen should not allocate a greater share of its budget next year to reach more public through advertising.
Also, the assumptions regaring the ambiguous terms, "Fewer" means very few, "positive reviews" means way above neutrality, "enough of the prospetive viewers" means significantly large and "good quality" means one that attracts poeple. Since these words can have multiple definitions, does not convince the reader to come onto the conclusion that author strongly supports.
Thus based on the above stated assumption and their flaws in substantiating the conclusion. Author can support the conclusion by adding the data that shows about the number of views for past year, number of viewers this year and number of people who reviews the movie after watching the movie in past year and this year. Author can further support the conclusion by explicitly defining the ambiguous terms like "few", "enough", etc. However, in its present form, the argument is flawed.
| 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 |
- The following is taken from a memo from the advertising director of super screen movie production company."According to a recent report from our marketing department, during the past year, fewer people attended super scree-produced movies than in any 29
- the best way for a society to prepare its young people for leadership in government, industry or any other fields is by instilling in them the sense of cooperation, not competition 66
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Sentence: Since, there is large gap between number of poeple reviewed the movie, author's conclusion is not substantiated.
Error: poeple Suggestion: people
Sentence: Additionally, author insubstantiatedly assumes that the people who reviewed the movie this year are the same who actually watched the movie.
Error: insubstantiatedly Suggestion: No alternate word
Sentence: Also, the assumptions regaring the ambiguous terms, 'Fewer' means very few, 'positive reviews' means way above neutrality, 'enough of the prospetive viewers' means significantly large and 'good quality' means one that attracts poeple.
Error: prospetive Suggestion: prospective
Error: regaring Suggestion: regarding
Error: poeple Suggestion: people
---------------------------
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: 413 350
No. of Characters: 2067 1500
No. of Different Words: 181 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.508 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.005 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.556 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 147 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 105 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 71 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 35 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 25.812 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.05 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.562 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.368 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.605 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.116 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, however, if, so, then, thus, for example
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 19.6327345309 81% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 12.9520958084 46% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 11.1786427146 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 13.6137724551 110% => OK
Pronoun: 21.0 28.8173652695 73% => OK
Preposition: 52.0 55.5748502994 94% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 16.3942115768 30% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2232.0 2260.96107784 99% => OK
No of words: 413.0 441.139720559 94% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.40435835351 5.12650576532 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.50803742585 4.56307096286 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.08859958218 2.78398813304 111% => OK
Unique words: 197.0 204.123752495 97% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.476997578692 0.468620217663 102% => OK
syllable_count: 675.9 705.55239521 96% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 4.96107784431 40% => OK
Article: 4.0 8.76447105788 46% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.70958083832 221% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 19.7664670659 86% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 22.8473053892 105% => OK
Sentence length SD: 63.9456949537 57.8364921388 111% => OK
Chars per sentence: 131.294117647 119.503703932 110% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.2941176471 23.324526521 104% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.58823529412 5.70786347227 63% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 8.20758483034 158% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 6.88822355289 29% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.67664670659 43% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.12546760801 0.218282227539 57% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0502403865512 0.0743258471296 68% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0638769568209 0.0701772020484 91% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0812676212484 0.128457276422 63% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0568794603323 0.0628817314937 90% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.1 14.3799401198 112% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 47.12 48.3550499002 97% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 12.197005988 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.34 12.5979740519 114% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.0 8.32208582834 96% => OK
difficult_words: 83.0 98.500998004 84% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 12.3882235529 117% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.1389221557 104% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.9071856287 126% => 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.