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 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.”
Write a response in which you discuss what questions
would need to be answered in order to decide whether the
recommendation and the argument on which it is based are
reasonable. Be sure to explain how the answers to these
questions would help to evaluate the recommendation.
The argument of the author that the Super Screen should allocate the more share of its budget on next year for the advertising for publicity is flawed. The author draws tha conclusion not only on the vaugue and the ambigiuous words but also the author has failed to calculate tha statical data before making the conclusion.
To begin the conclusion, the author have used the vague and ambigious words like "fewer", "increased" to describe the number of people attending the Super Screen-produced movies and the positive reviews by the viewers respectively. On doing so,the author has failed to address tyhe what percent of the positive reviews has been increased during the pasrt year. There wouldnot be any meaning on the positive review by increasing the just 1% and the movie viewers decreased by more than 50%.
Secondly, there might the positive reviews from the minority of the movie viewers who were reviewing the Super Screen-produced movies. In addition to this, majority of the movie viewers might have neglected to review the movie as the movie was too bad to be reviewed. The increasing positive reviews would not provide sufficient reason to justify the conclusion.
The Conclusion might been bolstered if the above mentioned flaws had been adressed properly. As stated earlier, the author's argument is flawed.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-01-06 | Sumaiya Mila | 50 | view |
| 2020-01-06 | Shams Tarek | 46 | view |
| 2020-01-02 | jamaya8 | 66 | view |
| 2019-12-26 | Yongrok_Jeong | 49 | view |
| 2019-12-10 | Opak Pulu | 16 | view |
- Woven baskets characterized by a particular distinctive pattern have previously been found only in the immediate vicinity of the prehistoric village of Palea and therefore were believed to have been made only by the Palean people. Recently, however, archa 33
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement?Technology has made children less creative than they were in the past. 50
- "A person from one culture has no right to judge the actions or values of aperson from a different culture 66
- The best way for preparing the young people 50
- Question : Summarise the points made in the lecture, being sure to explain how they case doubt on specific points made in the reading passage. 3
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: 10 15
No. of Words: 217 350
No. of Characters: 1084 1500
No. of Different Words: 120 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 3.838 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.995 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.611 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 81 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 57 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 43 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 24 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.7 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.734 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.5 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.421 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.663 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.123 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 9, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...efore making the conclusion. To begin the conclusion, the author have used the...
^^
Line 3, column 265, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma
Suggestion: , the
...by the viewers respectively. On doing so,the author has failed to address tyhe what ...
^^^^
Line 7, column 22, Rule ID: PRP_PAST_PART[2]
Message: Did you mean 'have been' or 'be'?
Suggestion: have been; be
...the conclusion. The Conclusion might been bolstered if the above mentioned flaws ...
^^^^
Line 7, column 117, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...ressed properly. As stated earlier, the authors argument is flawed.
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, if, second, secondly, so, as to, in addition
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 19.6327345309 46% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 12.9520958084 39% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 11.1786427146 45% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 2.0 13.6137724551 15% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 3.0 28.8173652695 10% => OK
Preposition: 26.0 55.5748502994 47% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 3.0 16.3942115768 18% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1137.0 2260.96107784 50% => More number of characters wanted.
No of words: 216.0 441.139720559 49% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.26388888889 5.12650576532 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.83365862548 4.56307096286 84% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.98733824915 2.78398813304 107% => OK
Unique words: 119.0 204.123752495 58% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.550925925926 0.468620217663 118% => OK
syllable_count: 350.1 705.55239521 50% => syllable counts are too short.
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 0.0 4.96107784431 0% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 10.0 19.7664670659 51% => 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: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 51.0603564422 57.8364921388 88% => OK
Chars per sentence: 113.7 119.503703932 95% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.6 23.324526521 93% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.5 5.70786347227 96% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 6.88822355289 44% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.67664670659 21% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.179548665936 0.218282227539 82% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0674729584587 0.0743258471296 91% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0730002649261 0.0701772020484 104% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0916704408424 0.128457276422 71% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0738787176876 0.0628817314937 117% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.1 14.3799401198 98% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 48.3550499002 104% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.197005988 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.23 12.5979740519 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.26 8.32208582834 99% => OK
difficult_words: 49.0 98.500998004 50% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 12.3882235529 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Minimum 250 words wanted.
Rates: 33.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 2.0 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.