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."
The author make a conclusion that Silver Screen should spend more of its budget next year on reaching the public through advertising and less on producing new movies. Becase the author think the public is lack of awareness that movies quality are available. Althogh the percentage of generally favorable comments by movie reviews actually increased during this period, it is the opnion of the movie reviews which not stand for the reviews of the most people. So these fact is not sufficient provide the conclusion. Furthermore the author think we need let more prospective viewer have the same opnion of the movie viewer. It is not unreasonable that it will decrease his inference. So I don't think it is a good conclusion for Silver Screen to spend more money on advertise instead of improve the quality of movie.
This fundamentally flawed response is characterized by three essential deficiencies:
-- It provides little evidence of the ability to understand and analyze the argument.
-- It provides little evidence of the ability to develop an organized response.
-- It contains a pervasive pattern of errors in grammar and usage that results in incoherence.
Where the language makes sense and looks controlled, the writer has relied on the language and phrasing of the argument topic. Where the writer has relied on her or his own knowledge and command of language and syntax, we see serious and fundamental deficiencies. Thus, this response requires a score of 1.