Events & Promotions
|
|
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.
Customized
for You
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Nov 2007:30 AM PST
-08:30 AM PST
Learn what truly sets the UC Riverside MBA apart and how it helps in your professional growth
23 Oct 2014, 05:39
Kudos
Bookmarks
I'd be grateful for your score estimate and any feedback on how can I improve.
The task:
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 answer
The argument is flowed for numerous reasons, primarily because it did not define properly the positive reviews, and used percentages incorrectly.
First, it is not clear what a positive review means. It might be anything from "The movie was ok" to "It is the best movie I have ever seen". The percentage though is a certain number. So, in order to make any decisions, we should know exactly how this number was computed. Maybe the algorithm for discerning positive reviews from negative ones changed from the previous year. Or maybe a new theater opened which provided bonuses for people leaving positive reviews. Also people expectations might have changed, so they expect low quality movies already, and not writing negative reviews. Any of these factors could render the increased percentage irrelevant for the argument.
But argument goes even further saying the percentage of positive reviews increased only for specific movies. This might mean, as a possibility, that the company made only a few great movies (for which percentages increased) and scores of bad movies for which percentage actually decreased. These great movies could even attract many visitors, but not enough to compensate for decreased quality in other works. We should know the data for all movies in order to make evaluate the recommendation.
Finally, even if percentages increased for significant fraction of movies, there is another flow in the argument. That is there might be other reasons for reduced number of visitors besides the lack of public awareness. For example, it might be that the company made fewer movies overall, so even though each of them could be more successful than movies from past years, the total number of viewers decreased. So, the total number of movies is required to make any further decisions.
All these flows render the argument invalid, and we need further evidence to back the decision stated.
The task:
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 answer
The argument is flowed for numerous reasons, primarily because it did not define properly the positive reviews, and used percentages incorrectly.
First, it is not clear what a positive review means. It might be anything from "The movie was ok" to "It is the best movie I have ever seen". The percentage though is a certain number. So, in order to make any decisions, we should know exactly how this number was computed. Maybe the algorithm for discerning positive reviews from negative ones changed from the previous year. Or maybe a new theater opened which provided bonuses for people leaving positive reviews. Also people expectations might have changed, so they expect low quality movies already, and not writing negative reviews. Any of these factors could render the increased percentage irrelevant for the argument.
But argument goes even further saying the percentage of positive reviews increased only for specific movies. This might mean, as a possibility, that the company made only a few great movies (for which percentages increased) and scores of bad movies for which percentage actually decreased. These great movies could even attract many visitors, but not enough to compensate for decreased quality in other works. We should know the data for all movies in order to make evaluate the recommendation.
Finally, even if percentages increased for significant fraction of movies, there is another flow in the argument. That is there might be other reasons for reduced number of visitors besides the lack of public awareness. For example, it might be that the company made fewer movies overall, so even though each of them could be more successful than movies from past years, the total number of viewers decreased. So, the total number of movies is required to make any further decisions.
All these flows render the argument invalid, and we need further evidence to back the decision stated.
Moderators:
189 posts
