Argu求拍：电影没人看，影评却很高~~~~

theopenwindow

感觉还是够不上“developed”啊······

80 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.

In the memo, the advertising director of Super Screen Movie Production Company suggested to demote more fund on advertising to cultivate more viewers. This recommendation was based on a big seemingly contradiction: Even though the percentage of positive reviews by movie reviewers about specific movies of the company had increased, fewer people attend their movies. However, there are questions on the survey and logical reasoning.


First of all, the director set a recent report from marketing department which showed that fewer people attended their movies than in any other years. This is the base of the whole argument, but some crucial questions have to be answered. Did the marketing department did this survey with indifferent position? If the marketing department manager did this in order to help the advertising manager to demand more money, this survey is not credible. Another question is about the survey design. Was it designed scientific? If there were many question demanding interviewees to compare their company with other renowned dominant companies, such as Fox, Dreamworks, and Universal Pictutes Corporations, there is no doubt that the viewers would answer with lower attention to their company. Even though there were no problem with the survey conductor and the survey design, did they find right samples? If most their audience are students and young white collars, while the survey sample were concentrated in old people in some special community, then this survey can't assert the diminishment of the audience.


Secondly, there are some questions about the increased percentage of positive reviews by movie reviewers. When it comes to the percentage, we have to ask how about the positive critics before? Maybe around the country, there was only fewer than ten critics praise their movies before. Then even if the percentage increased by 100%, there are only no more than twenty critics lauding the movies. It cannot prove the good quality of the movies. Another question is about the positive reviews about specific Super Screen movies referred in the memo. What did the author mean by 'specific'? Probably, most of the increasing appreciations from reviewers are about the movies produced years ago. Because of the change of current affairs and people's taste, some old films caught the critics' eyes more than before. If it is true, there is no doubt why fewer people attend films last years due to the indeed bad quality of the movies.


Then, even though the two proofs above are both true and can evince the contradiction between diminishing audiences and advanced movies' quality which got praise from reviewers, it is too hasty to contribute the situation to the audiences' awareness. Perhaps, because the economic regressed around the country in all industries including film industries, there is no doubt that people couldn't spend as much as before on entertainment such as movies. And this happened in all movie companies, not single the Super Screen Corporation. There is another probability that other movie companies advanced much faster than the Super Screen, with better and newer movie stars and creative movie directors. So even the Super Screen had more praise from reviewers, it cannot attend more audience naturally. So the author has to answer why not other factors lead to the situation.

In the memo, the advertising director of Super Screen Movie Production Company suggested to demote more fund on advertising to cultivate more viewers. This recommendation was based on a big seemingly contradiction: Even though the percentage of positive reviews by movie reviewers about specific movies of the company had increased, fewer people attend their movies. However, there are questions on the survey and logical reasoning.


First of all, the director set a recent report from marketing department which showed that fewer people attended their movies than in any other years. This is the base of the whole argument, but some crucial questions have to be answered. Did the marketing department did this survey with indifferent position? If the marketing department manager did this in order to help the advertising manager to demand more money, this survey is not credible. Another question is about the survey design. Was it designed scientific? If there were many question demanding interviewees to compare their company with other renowned dominant companies, such as Fox, Dreamworks, and Universal Pictutes Corporations, there is no doubt that the viewers would answer with lower attention to their company. Even though there were no problem with the survey conductor and the survey design, did they find right samples? If most their audience are students and young white collars, while the survey sample were concentrated in old people in some special community, then this survey can't assert the diminishment of the audience.


Secondly, there are some questions about the increased percentage of positive reviews by movie reviewers. When it comes to the percentage, we have to ask how about the positive critics before? Maybe around the country, there was only fewer than ten critics praise their movies before. Then even if the percentage increased by 100%, there are only no more than twenty critics lauding the movies. It cannot prove the good quality of the movies. Another question is about the positive reviews about specific Super Screen movies referred in the memo. What did the author mean by 'specific'? Probably, most of the increasing appreciations from reviewers are about the movies produced years ago. Because of the change of current affairs and people's taste, some old films caught the critics' eyes more than before. If it is true, there is no doubt why fewer people attend films last years due to the indeed bad quality of the movies.


Then, even though the two proofs above are both true and can evince the contradiction between diminishing audiences and advanced movies' quality which got praise from reviewers, it is too hasty to contribute the situation to the audiences' awareness. Perhaps, because the economic regressed around the country in all industries including film industries, there is no doubt that people couldn't spend as much as before on entertainment such as movies. And this happened in all movie companies, not single the Super Screen Corporation. There is another probability that other movie companies advanced much faster than the Super Screen, with better and newer movie stars and creative movie directors. So even the Super Screen had more praise from reviewers, it cannot attend more audience naturally. So the author has to answer why not other factors lead to the situation.

普渡哥

Did the marketing department did this survey with indifferent position? 这句话啥意思？

语法问题挺多的。我觉得内容够了。

竹林中人

这篇文章是不是粘贴的时候没粘好啊

theopenwindow

那句话应该是Is the survey conductor indifferent?...............
啊，为啥没粘贴好，里面的小黄斑是之前打错了的地方标注出来警示自己的