At first glance, the advertising director's recommendations may seem quite ingenious. However, a closer look raises many questions due to the various assumptions and inconclusive theories which must be addressed if the recommendation is to be taken seriously.
First, the director explains that according to the reports from the marketing department, fewer people attended Super screen -produced movies last year than in any other year.He instead posits that the low attendance is a result of limited outreach of reviews to the public. Even if this assumption proved to be true, it would not automatically render his view as accurate. The letter does not provide any evidence of direct correlation between the drop in attendance and the quality of movies. It could be that people are getting this reviews and but they are choosing not to attend. Without a survey or questionnaire asking people to opine reasons behind limited attendance, he can not back up his claim.
Secondly the assumption that the number of people attending the movies is based on reviews reaching them is quite inferior without some proper evidence. For example many people choose to watch new movies without necessarily knowing about the ratings or reviews. Just because a movie has good reviews, it does not automatically lure everyone's liking. People may like movies depending on their genre or plot or actors, thus quality may be very relative since it may be defined differently by the public. The contrary can be true if there was any survey or data presented by the director.
The director claims that only specific Super screen movies had increased percentages in reviews in the past year. According to him, lack of enough reviews reaching the public and informing them about the availability of quality movies is the problem. This claim is quite ambiguous and does not address why only specific movies had increased percentages in reviews from movie reviewers. Maybe the other movies were poor in quality and consequently were not among the specific ones which got reviewed. There could also be other means people could have used besides reviews to learn about the movies but had been apathetic towards attending them. This questions must be answered before the recommendation is entertained.
Finally, the director speculates that Super screen production should allocate a greater share of its budget to reaching out to the public through advertising. As credulous as this idea may seem, it my may not be plausible without investigating whether people wish to be reached with this content. For example, there could be other movie productions businesses newly open in the area that attract interest of the people or maybe the public prefer watching movies on the internet, For instance, on Netflix or any other domains as opposed to making trips to watch movies at Super screen production. Effecting this recommendation without determining where the public interest lies and trying to curb it will not help the situation.
- The best way for a society to prepare its young people for leadership in government, industry, or other fields is by instilling in them a sense of cooperation, not competition 66
- The best way to teach is to praise positive actions and ignore negative ones. 66
- The best way to teach is to praise positive actions and ignore negative ones. 66
- Colleges and universities should require all faculty to spend time working outside the academic world in professions relevant to the courses they teach. 66
- Argument Topic: "The following is taken from a memo from the advertising director of the Super Screen Movie Production Company. "According to a recent report from our marketing department, during the past year, fewer people attended Super Screen-produced 49
Essay evaluation report
sample:
https://www.testbig.com/gmatgre-argument-task-essays/following-taken-me…
----------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 22 15
No. of Words: 487 350
No. of Characters: 2476 1500
No. of Different Words: 248 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.698 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.084 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.703 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 193 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 135 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 87 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 56 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.136 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.186 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.636 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.299 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.46 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.081 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 475, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Therefore,
...g the specific ones which got reviewed. Therefore until the director can sufficiently ans...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 541, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...or can sufficiently answer this question of why only specific movies got reviewed...
^^
Line 6, column 450, Rule ID: PREFER_TO_VBG[1]
Message: Did you mean 'watch'?
Suggestion: watch
...he people or maybe the public prefer to watching movies on the internet, on Netflix or a...
^^^^^^^^
Line 6, column 594, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
...ies at Super screen production. We just dont know and therefore effecting this recom...
^^^^
Line 6, column 809, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'these'?
Suggestion: these
...ndation is pompous and specious without this answers.
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
consequently, finally, first, however, if, look, may, so, therefore, 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: 10.0 12.9520958084 77% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 11.1786427146 125% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 13.6137724551 88% => OK
Pronoun: 31.0 28.8173652695 108% => OK
Preposition: 53.0 55.5748502994 95% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 16.3942115768 67% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2027.0 2260.96107784 90% => OK
No of words: 401.0 441.139720559 91% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.05486284289 5.12650576532 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.47492842339 4.56307096286 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.78651942719 2.78398813304 100% => OK
Unique words: 203.0 204.123752495 99% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.506234413965 0.468620217663 108% => OK
syllable_count: 618.3 705.55239521 88% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Article: 5.0 8.76447105788 57% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
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: 25.0 22.8473053892 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 75.6057826823 57.8364921388 131% => OK
Chars per sentence: 126.6875 119.503703932 106% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.0625 23.324526521 107% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.0 5.70786347227 88% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 5.0 5.25449101796 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.88822355289 73% => OK
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: 0.258855119972 0.218282227539 119% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0867074538807 0.0743258471296 117% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.10566620432 0.0701772020484 151% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.145795016591 0.128457276422 113% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0995072860301 0.0628817314937 158% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.9 14.3799401198 104% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 54.56 48.3550499002 113% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.31 12.5979740519 98% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.5 8.32208582834 102% => OK
difficult_words: 92.0 98.500998004 93% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.1389221557 108% => 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.