hopefulPA2B Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016 I've been working really hard to better my score in the other sections, but haven't hit the essay portion of the test as well as I would've like...Thanks in advance for taking a look at this. Everything you need is below. Here is an official scoring guide as well for ya: https://www.ets.org/gre/revised_general/prepare/analytical_writing/argument/scoring_guide Prompt: 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. My response: In the argument stating Super Screen should spend more money on advertising movies, the author makes several unwarrated assumptions. First of all, the author states that the marketing department reported increased positive reviews, but only on specific movies. It is unclear at this point what types of movies the survey reported satisfaction ratings on. For example, the survey could have just asked those who took the survey how they felt about the good movies that Super Screen produced, and left the bad movies out. It is possible that Super Screen produced bad movies that no one wanted to see, and this may be the reason for the lack of people attending the movies, but we are not told what these "specific Super Screen movies" are and, thus, can not assume that all the movies are "good" ones. To make this a fair report, the marketing department could attempt sharing with the audience proof that Super Screen movies that recieved a satisfaction rating were random. Donig so would ensure the audience that the satisfaction rating of those movies were fair. Also, provides faulty reasoning that these surveys reached the same pool as all the other mentioned years. Perhaps, these surveys were given ot a remote population that were unfamiliar with Super Screen movies. The author even neglects to share with the audience that the survey questions were even the same as last year. Therefore, the audience has no reason to believe that these surveys were not biased in some way. Another obvious fallacy in this argument is that the only thing that could bring people to watch Super Screen movies is the advertisement. Since the author does not tell us where these movies can be watched, we are left not knowing that maybe customer service, price, or even acessability could be a potetntial problem as well. All these problems could prevent people from watching their movies also. In sum, to make the author's argument more sound, the author would need to define what specific movies the reviewers reported on, and provide information about what methods the marketing department gained this report. Without more information, the reader of this argument has no way to conclude if spending more of the budget really is the best choice in this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!Register a new account
Already have an account? Sign in here.Sign In Now