Super Screen Synthesis Essay

The argument makes indefensible and unjustified assumptions regarding the reduction of audiences of Super-Screen production movies. Taken as a whole, these unwarranted assumptions deliver a highly distrusted assertion. Indeed, if these unstated assumptions do not hold true, the argument entirely collapses.

The argument puts its assertions according to an unaddressed report, the validity of which is not justified. It is not obvious whether the report truly represents the society. In statistical terms, the sampling must be random to eliminate the possibility of biases. The report might have been prepared from the data that concentrated in a particular neighborhood, and thus not all the residents of the city obtain the equal chance of being represented
and this disposes the results toward biased analysis. Moreover, the argument fails to clarify the statistical elements of the report including the population and sample size. If the report is representative of a random but minor population, the results obtained from it may be susceptible to assuming as true a false premise. On the other hand, if the report is indeed representative of a broad spectrum, it implies that the population that attended the super Screen-produced movies declined but based on this, it could not be concluded that people stopped watching movies. Due to the established technological advances in the quality of home theater systems, public preferences might have changed and people prefer to watch movies on their home cinema theaters and if this presents the case, the arguments will suffer from a misinterpretation of the situation.

Moreover, the argument cites the movie reviews and based on their increased positive rates, it asserts that the content of the movies improved during the last year.
First of all, the argument does not mention the references of the reviews. Reviews might be from a variety of channels or could be produced from only one. Evidently, different sources employ a variety of perspectives to criticize a movie and different critics seek for different elements inside a movie. Therefore, while critics from a channel might adore a movie, the others might not even rate it as qualified. Even if reviews are not susceptible to biased ideas from one channel, it does not mean that audiences must appreciate what reviewers listed as admirable. The contents that fascinate movie viewers might have distanced from the contents that were displayed in the last year’s movies even though movies were praised by reviewers. For example, the witch is a movie that critics regarded highly last year but could not satisfy viewer’s taste. A survey could help to demonstrate the people’s opinion. If the opinions showed consistency and were parallel to what reviewers indicated, the claim of the argument that was built on this critics-viewers parallelism assumption would survive; otherwise, the claim is flawed and the company must end its tendencies toward advertising and instead revise the contents of the
movies.

Moreover, the argument suggests that the problem lies with the lack of public awareness that the high-quality movies are available. The argument draws this conclusion naively and without taking into consideration the alternative reasons that might prevent people from attending cinemas. Due to the increased pressure of modern life and the increased hours that individuals spend on their careers, people might not find enough time to go to movies and this might be the reasons behind the declined number of viewers not the lack of information that the argument address. It this is indeed the case, the advertising solution will not resolve the problem and will be a misuse of financial resources.

Thus, with all above in mind, it is fair to acknowledge that the argument suffers from lack of detailed explanation for its assertions. The advertising director must evaluate the problem with more careful consideration and then based on the solid results make the decision for an optimum solution.