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 movies than in any

The advertising director of the memo states that there should be a greater focus on advertising by the production company in order to attract a greater portion of the public to watch their movies. This argument is not completely cogent from a logical standpoint as it fails to address three crucial questions that need to be answered for further clarification of the situation.

First, the marketing department collected data that showed fewer people had attended Super Screen produced movies this past year than any of the previous years. This statement must come with the assumption that the only factor that caused this reduction in viewership in cinemas was due to a lack of advertising. However, there is the question of outside technological advances, for example, a home theater or a movie rental company, such as RedBox, that may prompt a lot of the viewers to instead watch the movies in the comfort of their home. This number could have decreased from previous years due to the shortage of such luxuries that were available at that time. For instance, most of the people may have downloaded or viewed the movie on another outlet such as Netflix, resulting in fewer people watching the film in theaters. This fact could skew the amount of viewers perceived by the production industry that have actually seen the movie. The argument could be strengthened if the author stated that viewers opted to go for movies produced by companies that allocated greater budgets and spent more time on advertising.

Second, the speaker states that there is an increase percentage of positive reviews for the movie this year. Using a percentage to delineate the amount of positive reviews the movie is receiving is an invalid comparison. There is the question of how many people who watch the movie even submitted reviews. The number of reviews in the first place wold have been very few, for instance, if only the people who enjoyed the movie decided to submit a review. And therefore, the percentage of positive reviews would certainly be expected to be high. For example, if during a previous year, 200 people submitted reviews and 100 of them were positive, then those positive reviews comprise 50% of all those sent in. However, if only 100 reviews were sent in this past year, and 75 of them were positive, then this past year boasts a greater percentage of 75% of positive reviews. However, there are still less positive reviews than previous years. The argument could be fortified if the argument could provide precise numerical data from this past year and previous years so that the reader is allowed to analyze the context from which these conclusions were extracted.

Finally, the argument concludes by stating that Super Screen should set aside a greater proportion of its budget to reach the public through advertising. If there is a greater percentage of the money to be allocated for one cause, then the amount of money that had been incorporated into another facet of production declines. There still lies the question of what will happen to the budget that had been allocated to quality of production. This could mean the reduction of quality in movies, which is what the production company was assured of in the first place. If tremendous effort and money is put into advertising, the movie may not reap the fruits of its labor if the quality of the film was compromised. The author can strengthen the argument by stating that more money will be invested overall into advertising, so that a part of budget is not taken away from the other departments of production.

By clarifying the questions about the amount of people attending movies, the percentage of positive reviews written this past year, and the allocation of production budget, this argument has the potential to present a strong stance. However, it fails to do so and therefore, the premise of the argument is inherently weak.