Best Way For Society To Prepare It's Youth For Leadership

The provided memo brings a lot of questions to mind. These need to properly addressed before jumping to the conclusion that increasing the advertising budget will help increase the attendance of people in movies produced by Super Screen Movie Production Company. Firstly, the memo talks about fewer people having attended movies in the past year. What is the exact difference between the past years attendance and other years? Is it 100, 1000, 10000? The word fewer does not help get a correct picture. Perhaps a quantitive description in the form of percentage drop year-on-year will be helpful in getting a correct perspective.

Using such a description we may observe something that was missed earlier. For example, the trend of a graph of the percentage drop may show that the attendance has been declining since last 5 years and that the past year fits the same pattern. This will help discover more effective measures to capture the drop. Thus a lack of required quantitative data is detrimental to the argument and must be addressed. Secondly, the memo refers to "positive reviews" about specific movies. And this information is used primarily to derive the conclusion that public's lack of awareness has led to drop in attendance. This doesn't sound quite logical. The cause-effect relationship isn't very strong in this argument. Is there data to show that the attendance of the movies with "positive reviews" is as low as the other movies? What percentage of the movies received "positive reviews"? Only if it can be proven that movies with "positive reviews" also received as low attendance as the rest of the movies, can it really be useful in determining the root cause of the low attendance. Likewise, the movies with "positive reviews" should be a substantial percentage of all movies produced in the past year to be able to represent the entire set of movies. Taking the point forward, the entire argument assumes that "positive reviews" by movie reviewers is an acceptable indicator of overall public opinion. A lot of times it has been observed that critically acclaimed movies have not done so well in terms of the box-office numbers.

Shawshank Redemption is one of the best examples. Lying at the top of the iMDB chart of best movies overall, the movie had received only mild reactions from the public when it released in the theaters. The company should focus on gauging the mood of the public and what they really want to see. It could be that the audience is more inclined towards specific genres like suspense, horror, etc while the company is producing movies of a not-so-favorite genre. Answering such questions will help strengthen the argument that "positive reviews" by movie reviewers is indeed an acceptable indicator of public opinion. Lastly, the conclusion takes into account only one line of thought. Real world isn't that straight or logical. More light on why other alternatives are not as feasible as the presented option would help make the argument sound more reasonable. Questions such as whether the impact of release dates, cost of tickets, etc has been considered or not, will naturally arise. Hence addressing the most common alternatives to identify and address the root cause will help stregthen the argument.