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 posi

In this argument, advertising director of the Super Screen Movie Production Company concludes that the company should increase investment in advertising rather than improving film quality to increase the company’s popularity. To support this recommendation the director cites the following fact about Super Screen-produced movies: (1)The number of movie viewers decreased compared with previous years;(2) The number of critics’ positive comments on the film rises. However, it does not constitute a logical argument, in favour of its conclusion, and fail to provide convincing support making this argument sound and invulnerable.

First of all, based on the fact that the decreasing number of attendance and the opposite trend of positive comments, editor infers that lack of advertisement should be responsible for the failure of attracting the audience. However, the changes of the two indicators do not suffice to prove that assumption. The unpopularity of the company’s films is not necessarily because consumers are unaware of positive reviews. Maybe they know the movie is highly rated, but don’t like the subject matter, or just can’t afford its ticket, so they don’t watch it. In short, without ruling out scenarios such as these, the director cannot establish a cause-and-effect relationship between the investment in publicity and increasing the number of moviegoers.

Secondly, the director claims that expanding propaganda can raise popularity because one years ago the kind of phenomenon that mentioned in the second paragraph occurs in the Super Screen Movie Production Company. This assumption is unwarranted because things rarely remain the same over an extended period of time. There are likely all kinds of difference between now and past. For example, perhaps the decline in attendance last year was related to the company’s particular difficulties in the past year, or to the broader national economy, and may not be sustainable in the future.

Even if this suggestion is helpful to the company, it is not necessary to implement it. First of all, it may have a negative impact, because the cost of the film production part may be reduced accordingly, resulting in a decline in film quality. Second, even if the negative impact is small, other better solutions cannot be ruled out. Before comprehensively assessing the feasibility and effectiveness of each program, the director should not rush to determine that only by increasing the advertising budget can the company bring more viewers.

To sum up, the director fails to substantiate his claim that increasing investment in advertising could improve the company’s popularity because the evidence cited does not lend strong support to what the arguer maintains. To make the argument more convincing, the author would have to provide more information with regard to all possible reasons for the past year phenomenon and assess the feasibility and effectiveness of all plans.