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 argument taken from the memo that Super Screen should allocate a greater share of its budget next year to reaching the public through advertising is flawed. In the argument, the conclusion is based on vague and ambiguous terms. Furthermore, the conclusion doesn't take into account the quality of the Super Screen movie theaters and it also fails to address whether the percentage of people attending movies decreased in all kinds of production types or not.
To begin, the conclusion is largely based on the assumption that the past year fewer people attended Super Screen-produced movies while the percentage of positive reviews by movie reviewers increased. But it fails to address the exact number of people attended the movies last year and by what percent positive reviews increased. For example, it is possible that the amount of people decreased is only 100 and the percentage increase of positive reviews is only 2. In those cases, it is impossible to determine whether increasing the budget for advertisement would attract desired amount of viewers.
Second, the conclusion fails to address the quality of the theaters. It is possible that fewer people are attending the movies not because of the lack of awareness or the quality of the movies, but because of the quality of the movie theaters. Without knowing the answer to the question whether the quality of the movie theaters is up to the mark or not, it is quite difficult to make any conclusion.
Third, the memo does not indicate whether the amount of people going to all kinds of movies decreased or not. If the amount of people going to all kinds of movies decreased, it would not do much to attract the viewers only by advertising. So, to make any conclusion, the answer to this question is necessary.
The argument can be strengthened by clearly defining the amount of people went to the super screen produced movies last year and the exact percentage of increase of positive reviews. The argument can be further strengthened by taking into account the quality of the movie theaters. As it stands, however, the argument is flawed because of the stated reasons.
| 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 |
- Although innovations such as video, computers, and the Internet seem to offer schools improved methods for instructing students, these technologies all too often distract from real learning. 83
- Governments should focus on solving the immediate problems of today rather than on trying to solve the exposure problems of the future. Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain you 50
- "Over the past year, our late-night news program has devoted increased time to national news and less time to weather and local news. During this period, most of the complaints received from viewers were concerned with our station's coverage of 63
- gh 16
- Colleges and universities should require all faculty to spend time working outside the academic world in professions relevant to the courses they teach. [Specific Task Instruction: Write a response in which you discuss your views on the policy and explain 50
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: 16 15
No. of Words: 360 350
No. of Characters: 1742 1500
No. of Different Words: 142 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.356 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.839 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.613 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 137 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 100 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 62 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 35 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.5 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.937 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.625 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.389 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.632 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.161 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 261, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...uous terms. Furthermore, the conclusion doesnt take into account the quality of the Su...
^^^^^^
Line 5, column 275, Rule ID: WHETHER[5]
Message: Can you shorten this phrase to just 'whether', or rephrase the sentence to avoid "the question"?
Suggestion: whether
...theaters. Without knowing the answer to the question whether the quality of the movie theaters is up...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, furthermore, however, if, second, so, then, third, while, for example
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 19.6327345309 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 12.9520958084 39% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 11.1786427146 98% => OK
Relative clauses : 4.0 13.6137724551 29% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 15.0 28.8173652695 52% => OK
Preposition: 57.0 55.5748502994 103% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 16.3942115768 61% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1796.0 2260.96107784 79% => OK
No of words: 359.0 441.139720559 81% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.00278551532 5.12650576532 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.35284910392 4.56307096286 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.68262046169 2.78398813304 96% => OK
Unique words: 145.0 204.123752495 71% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.403899721448 0.468620217663 86% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 551.7 705.55239521 78% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 19.7664670659 81% => 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: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 47.7142781958 57.8364921388 82% => OK
Chars per sentence: 112.25 119.503703932 94% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.4375 23.324526521 96% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.0 5.70786347227 88% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.88822355289 73% => OK
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: 0.389083549923 0.218282227539 178% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.129780342445 0.0743258471296 175% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.136226688196 0.0701772020484 194% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.219652605714 0.128457276422 171% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0992346844296 0.0628817314937 158% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.3 14.3799401198 92% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 57.61 48.3550499002 119% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.197005988 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.02 12.5979740519 95% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.63 8.32208582834 92% => OK
difficult_words: 66.0 98.500998004 67% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 12.3882235529 105% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.