I had to write an essay depicting the assumptions a given argument made and the possible repercussions of it that assumption was wrong. This is my "weakest" area so any feedback is great. The scale is 1-6.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The advertising director of the Super Screen Movie Production Company suggests that allocating a greater share of the companies budget next year would increase exposure to the public resulting in higher attendance rates, increased positive reviews and consumers.

One thing that he does not touch on, is the amount, on average, of films that Super Screen produced this year. The reports from the marketing department only suggest that their were fewer people in attendance than last year. A better way to evaluate attendance would be to convert the number in attendance as a whole into a percentage. An example would be if they produced ten movies last year and five thousand customers attended each one - resulting in 50, 0000 people in attendance. This year, however, the company could have only produced four movies. Even if six thousand people were to attend each of those movies, the total numbers for attendance (24,000) would still be less than last year although more people, on average, would have gone to view this years movies. Allocating a greater share of their budget to advertisement would prove ineffective in increasing these numbers if they only produced, say, four movies as opposed to last years twelve.

This statement also suggests that the reviews are done only by people who generally watch Super Screen Movies and read by those who watch Super Screen Movies. It infers that not enough prospective viewers are being exposed to the reviews that have been written, although there is no clear evidence that this is the case. Perhaps the people who chose to take the time to leave reviews were simply those most pleased with the movie and excited to share their enthusiasm. Perhaps there were plenty of prospective viewers to did, indeed, read the positive reviews but still remained unimpressed and thus decided not to attend. By allocating a greater share of their budget to advertisement, they can not effectively say that more people will write reviews (positive ones at that) to thier movies or even that the number of people who wouldn't ordinarily look up reviews will be inspired to do so.

Assuming that, somehow, greater advertisement would increase the awareness of the public to the reviews that have been made - how can they be sure that the problem does not lie in the quality of the movie? Generally, consumers tend to stick in their comfort zone and those who enjoy Super Screen Movie's will be more willing to attend one simply because of the name. Simply providing more advertisements does not suggest providing more appeal to the inexperienced viewer.

Along those lines, the advertising director suggests that lack of funding has resulted in poor quality advertisements. By allocating a greater share of their budget to advertising, they are simply increasing the budget for what could simply be ineffective advertising. What if, instead, they chose to use the same budget as before to create more effective advertisement? What if they chose to use those same advertisements on a different channel or provide them through alternative media outlets?

The advertising director simply does not have enough evidence to truly prove that allocating a greater amount of funds will benefit the Super Screen Movie Production in any way.