Super Screen Movies Argument Analysis

The conclusion of the argument, "Super Screen should therefore allocate a greater share of its budget next year to reaching the public through advertising," rests primarily on three not necessarily valid assumptions. First, it assumes that the quality of its movies are reflected by the reviewers' opinions. Second, it assumes that the public is unaware that Super Screen movies are of good quality. Finally, it assumes that increasing Super Screen's advertising budget will increase the number of people attending Super Screen movies.

The argument notes that "the percentage of positive reviews... actually increased," using the percentage as a basic to conclude that Super Screen movies are high quality. However, there are several crucial pieces of evidence needed to validate this conclusion. The population of movie reviewers is a small sample of all people who see Super Screen movies.

This rests on the assumption that viewers are typically interested in seeing movies that are high quality, which is a fair assumption to make, but it also rests on the assumption that this is the only deciding factor in what venue viewers pick for movies. A whole host of other factors could have contributed to this result. For example, they could be only showing movies that only cater to a very small niche of people, like horror or science documentaries or family movies. The theater conditions might be disgusting and the only people who actually come to the movies are those who don't care.To validate this assumption, user research would have to be done on the people who chose not to come to Super Screen to pinpoint their reasons. If the most common reason for avoiding Super Screen were lack of awareness of quality of the selection, then this claim would be