The following is taken from a memo from the advertising director of the Silver Screen Movie Production Company.
"According to a recent report from our marketing department, fewer people attended movies produced by Silver Screen during the past year than in any other year. And yet the percentage of generally favorable comments by movie reviewers about specific Silver Screen movies actually increased during this period. Clearly, the contents of these reviews are not reaching enough of our prospective viewers; so 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. Silver Screen should therefore spend more of its budget next year on reaching the public through advertising and less on producing new movies."
Although the reasoning in this arguement is logical, the writer failed to consider other reasons for the disparity between the percentage of people attending the company's movie and the percentage of favorable reviews. Perhaps the fault lies with the reviewers and not the production company; the public may not trust the critics' reviews. Another posibility for the attendance drop is that the general public does not find the subject matter of the movies enticing. If that were the case, spending less on producing new movies in an effort to re-direct funds to advertising could backfire by further limiting the types of movies available to the potential audience. Maybe the general public is simply not impressed with the critically-acclaimed qualities of the movies (such as eloquent screenplays, artful cinematography, and realistic acting) and and would prefer seeing flashy special effects and big-name stars. The possible reasons for the attendance decline are numerous; even aspects not directly related to the movie industry (such as the improving quality of television programming and the increasing popularity of home computer use) may play large roles. The company's management would be wise to consider and study the entire realm of possibilities before making drastic changes in its budget based on one statistical discovery.
This response identifies and analyzes some important flaws in the argument. Although the number of points mentioned is the same as that in the sample 5 paper, this response remains at the 4 score level because the points of the critique are only minimally developed or supported.
The essay identifies four points:
-- the public might not trust critics
-- the movies' subject matter might not be appealing
-- the public might prefer seeing special effects or big-name stars rather than good cinematography or realistic acting
-- perhaps improvement in TV programming or increased use of home computers has kept people away from movie theaters
Ideas in the response are conveyed well and clearly; the use of language is generally strong. But the paper's "bare-bones" analysis gives it a list-like quality. It is therefore merely adequate and merits a score of 4.