In this memo, the advertising director is recommending that increasing budget to Super Screen movies could enhance their advertising strategy to reaching the public. To support this recommendation, the speaker is indicating that most reviews are not prospective enough and this is due to the lack of awareness that they have movies with good qualities. However, this claim in underlying some false assumptions, thus this claim is specious in several respects.
To begin with, the director is assuming that most of the movie viewers wrote review after watching. Yet this claim seems just specious. Perhaps people who thought the movie was terrible didn't even wanted to write any reviews because of their unpleasant feeling. Instead, positive viewers were willing to write good comments and this could be the reason to find relatively positive reviews.
Moreover, since the recent marketing department's report didn't mentioned about specific criteria for its survey, it is insufficient to determine the reliability of the report. It is said that the report was based on the survey of past year's viewers, however, there are no mentions about the extent of past years. What if the marketing department was established like a year ago, which is insufficient time to scrap considerable data, or what if the interviewees were just limited mostly to young generations who are generally fanatic to Super Screen movies compared to the older generations? Thus, specific criteria for survey is required to make reasonable conclusion.
In addition, given that Super Screen-produced movies contains various scopes, such as science fiction, romance, or social criticism, it is difficult to apply same judge to each movies. So when asked to review about Super Screen movies, it is likely to speak with general opinions about it instead of picking a specific movie and talk about its quality. Thus, by just claiming that actual viewer's review is not reaching to prospective reviews, it doesn't mean that they are not aware of the fact that movies of good quality is available; it was just that they were not asked with specific details.
In sum, the director’s recommendation is unpersuasive as it stands. To bolster it, improving the quality of survey and providing specific criteria for judgement should be established. Also to better assess the argument, we would need to know if the report was made with sufficient data.
- Critical judgment of work in any given field has little value unless it comes from someone who is an expert in that field. 66
- The primary goal of technological advancement should be to increase people's efficiency so that they have more leisure time.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for t 66
- In any field of endeavor, it is impossible to make a significant contribution without first being strongly influenced by past achievements within that field.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement 41
- The following appeared in a health newsletter."A ten-year nationwide study of the effectiveness of wearing a helmet while bicycling indicates that ten years ago, approximately 35 percent of all bicyclists reported wearing helmets, whereas today that numbe 61
- The following appeared in a letter from a firm providing investment advice to a client."Homes in the northeastern United States, where winters are typically cold, have traditionally used oil as their major fuel for heating. Last year that region experienc 49
Essay evaluation report
flaws:
the arguments are not on the right track. Here goes a sample:
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: 17 15
No. of Words: 390 350
No. of Characters: 1976 1500
No. of Different Words: 204 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.444 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.067 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.727 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 147 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 108 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 75 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 43 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.941 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.264 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.588 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.296 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.562 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.048 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 188, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: didn't
...ople who thought the movie was terrible didnt even wanted to write any reviews becaus...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 58, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: didn't
...the recent marketing departments report didnt mentioned about specific criteria for i...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 448, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...not reaching to prospective reviews, it doesnt mean that they are not aware of the fac...
^^^^^^
Line 9, column 191, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Also,
...ia for judgement should be established. Also to better assess the argument, we would...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, however, if, moreover, so, thus, in addition, such as, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 28.0 19.6327345309 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 12.9520958084 39% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 11.1786427146 63% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 13.6137724551 103% => OK
Pronoun: 34.0 28.8173652695 118% => OK
Preposition: 54.0 55.5748502994 97% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 16.3942115768 55% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2036.0 2260.96107784 90% => OK
No of words: 387.0 441.139720559 88% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.26098191214 5.12650576532 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.43534841618 4.56307096286 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.82492173606 2.78398813304 101% => OK
Unique words: 212.0 204.123752495 104% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.547803617571 0.468620217663 117% => OK
syllable_count: 620.1 705.55239521 88% => 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: 4.0 8.76447105788 46% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 8.0 4.22255489022 189% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 19.7664670659 86% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 59.8714886712 57.8364921388 104% => OK
Chars per sentence: 119.764705882 119.503703932 100% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.7647058824 23.324526521 98% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.35294117647 5.70786347227 76% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.20758483034 122% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 6.88822355289 29% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.67664670659 107% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.165758212735 0.218282227539 76% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0527492595977 0.0743258471296 71% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0520869421 0.0701772020484 74% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0865768587264 0.128457276422 67% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0288201524246 0.0628817314937 46% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.7 14.3799401198 102% => 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: 13.52 12.5979740519 107% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.05 8.32208582834 109% => OK
difficult_words: 106.0 98.500998004 108% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 12.3882235529 69% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => 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.