“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.”
The author the memo tries the convey the idea that there is a decrease in viewers for super screen movies and the reason for that decrease is, despite the increased postive review percentage for specific movies bu super screen movies, is that that people are unaware of theses good quality movies. this argument, looked at a superficial level seems intuitive. It may be reasonable for one to argue that the reason for low audience, despute high quality verified by the reviewers, is that the lack of awareness in the audience. However, the critical analyser of this argument would find that the line of argument is rife with holes and ommissions. The critical analyser would make quaries pertaining to theses ambiguities, answers to whcih may clarify the underlying assumptions of the author, hence sheding more light to acurate evaluation of the recommendation.
The advertising director talks about a decrease in the number of audience. this decrease referred here seems to be about the decrease in audience as a whole for every movie. The underlying assumption used here by the director is that since the number of audience reduced as a whole, number of audience for the movies with high reviews were also wrong. A worthwhile question to ask would be on the isolated change in audience number for moviews with good reviews. For example, if the audience number is high for a movie with good review than for the average movie in the market, the argument of the weak communication channel between the movies and the audience becomes weak. In such a situation, the recommendation may deem to be invalidated.
Another worthwhile question to ask would be that how the general movie industry is performing at the time. if audience for the movies as a whole is reduced, irrespective of the studio, ratings of the movie, the recommendation would not necessarily increase the number of audience. In such a situation, allocating greater share for marketing would result in an wastesul cost.
The author is also keen to point out that the "percentage of reviewers" who gave positive reviews for a movie, on specific movies, have increased. here the percentage increase is ambiguous. A worthwhile question that could be asked is whether the absolute number of reviewers that have given good reviews have been increases, and if so, by how much. For example in a total of small number of reviewers, number of positive reviews incresing would result in a large increase in percentages, without any significant actual increase in positive reviews. The audience may be aware of this and that would be the reason they are not interested in these movies.g. In such a situation the recommendations would prove to be futile, and will not result in increased audience. Thus looking into the actual absolute numbers would be advisable.
The author of this argument have given a recommendation that relies on ambiguos forms of statistics and unclear notions on the behaviour of the market. The author have taken some assumption that at best can be said as trivial, as opposed to critical and well evaluated. answering the above mentioned questions would reveal the validity of the underlying assumptions of the author, allowing more insight on the issue and situation at hand. this would help evaluate the outcomes of the recommendations more comprehensively.
| 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 |
- Governments should focus on solving the immediate problems of today rather than on trying to solve the anticipated problems of the future.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain y 50
- A recently issued twenty-year study on headaches suffered by the residents of Mentia investigated the possible therapeutic effect of consuming salicylates. Salicylates are members of the same chemical family as aspirin, a medicine used to treat headaches. 42
- “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 movie 55
Comments
Essay evaluation report
samples:
https://www.testbig.com/gmatgre-argument-task-essays/following-taken-me…
----------------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 18 15
No. of Words: 551 350
No. of Characters: 2732 1500
No. of Different Words: 217 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.845 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.958 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.775 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 203 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 156 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 115 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 61 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 30.611 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 13.512 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.722 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.348 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.563 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.098 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 27, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
The author the memo tries the convey the idea that there is a decrease in vi...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 205, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'movies'' or 'movie's'?
Suggestion: movies'; movie's
... postive review percentage for specific movies bu super screen movies, is that that pe...
^^^^^^
Line 1, column 299, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: This
... unaware of theses good quality movies. this argument, looked at a superficial level...
^^^^
Line 2, column 75, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: This
...t a decrease in the number of audience. this decrease referred here seems to be abou...
^^^^
Line 3, column 107, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: If
...vie industry is performing at the time. if audience for the movies as a whole is r...
^^
Line 3, column 357, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'a' instead of 'an' if the following word doesn't start with a vowel sound, e.g. 'a sentence', 'a university'
Suggestion: a
...ter share for marketing would result in an wastesul cost. The author is also keen...
^^
Line 4, column 157, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Here
...ie, on specific movies, have increased. here the percentage increase is ambiguous. A...
^^^^
Line 5, column 270, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Answering
...opposed to critical and well evaluated. answering the above mentioned questions would rev...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 439, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: This
...ght on the issue and situation at hand. this would help evaluate the outcomes of the...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, hence, however, if, look, may, so, thus, well, while, for example
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 27.0 19.6327345309 138% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 19.0 12.9520958084 147% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 13.6137724551 118% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 28.8173652695 83% => OK
Preposition: 77.0 55.5748502994 139% => OK
Nominalization: 33.0 16.3942115768 201% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2801.0 2260.96107784 124% => OK
No of words: 551.0 441.139720559 125% => OK
Chars per words: 5.0834845735 5.12650576532 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.84493438435 4.56307096286 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.91792734981 2.78398813304 105% => OK
Unique words: 234.0 204.123752495 115% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.424682395644 0.468620217663 91% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 900.0 705.55239521 128% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 14.0 8.76447105788 160% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.22255489022 166% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 19.7664670659 121% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 61.3661596937 57.8364921388 106% => OK
Chars per sentence: 116.708333333 119.503703932 98% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.9583333333 23.324526521 98% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.95833333333 5.70786347227 52% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 9.0 5.25449101796 171% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 8.20758483034 146% => 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: 0.156665436106 0.218282227539 72% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0450026024585 0.0743258471296 61% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0657472814497 0.0701772020484 94% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0896429874077 0.128457276422 70% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0441734988711 0.0628817314937 70% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.0 14.3799401198 97% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 48.3550499002 102% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.48 12.5979740519 99% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.25 8.32208582834 99% => OK
difficult_words: 123.0 98.500998004 125% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 12.3882235529 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => 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.