"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 positive reviews by movie reviewers about specific Super Screen movies actually increased during the past year. Clearly, the contents of these reviews are not reaching enough of our prospective viewers. Thus, the problem lies not with the quality of our movies but with the public's lack of awareness that movies of good quality are available. Super Screen should therefore allocate a greater share of its budget next year to reaching the public through advertising."

Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the recommendation and the argument on which it is based are reasonable. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the recommendation.

The author of this statement claims that Super Screen Movie Production Company should spend more money on advertising in order to increase the number of people attending Super Screen-produced movies, reversing the decline in the previous year. They make this argument based on the claim that an increase in positive reviews demonstrates that it is not the quality of the movies that is the problem, but the population's awareness of them. As it stands, this argument makes a number of unwarranted claims, and is thus weak. In order to strengthen the argument, the author must provide answers to the following three questions: the representativeness of the reviews and whether they are reflective of the population more broadly, any other potential reasons why the number of positive reviews would have increased, and whether advertising is would indeed cause an increase in the public's exposure to positive reviews.

Firstly, the author makes an inductive fallacy in attributing the views of the small sample of reviewers to the public as a whole; the author infers that "the problem lies not in the quality of [their] movies" by simply asserting that the number of positive reviews by movie viewers has increased in the past year without qualifying who those reviewers were and which movies they were referring to. It could be that these reviewers are an avid group of people that religiously watch Super Screen Movies and rate their quality, but that the majority of viewers do not enjoy the movies. In order for this to be compelling evidence, the author must answer the questions as to who the reviewers are and which movies they are watching so as to demonstrate that the reviewers are indeed representative of the general population's views of the movies.

Secondly, the author makes a causal fallacy in attributing an increasing number of positive reviews to a general increase in the approval ratings of its movies. Though this is not explicitly stated in the statement, it is the claim that the author's argument implicitly depends upon. There are a plethora of potential reasons as to why the number of positive reviews increased. For example, the social media page could have been more visible online or the company could have been offering discounts for reviews. Even if the reviews are representative of the general population, as in the point made above, the author must then make it clear how these reviews demonstrate that the population does indeed have a favourable view of its movies, rather than being more enthusiastic reviewers. They should compare their reviews with those of other movie production companies to examine whether there is a general increase in reviewing, as opposed to specific reviews for their movies. The author must answer the question as to what has caused an increase in the positive reviews for the specific movies that they refer to.

Lastly, the author makes the mistake of generalizing from reviews to advertising more broadly. They make the statement that the public are not seeing the reviews that are posted about the movies, but then make the unqualified assertion that the way to increase this is to spend more money on advertising. The causal link between increasing funds for advertising and increasing exposure to reviews is merely asserted by the author. The question that would need to be answered here is how the advertising money would be spent and, indeed, whether any money needs to be spent here at all. For example, it could be argued that these reviews would be better shared over social media, a medium that does not require any funding.

The author may indeed be correct in their claim that increasing money spent on advertising would increase the number of attendees of Super Screen-produced movies as a result of increased exposure to positive reviews. However, the argument that they have presented in favour of this claim is weak and unsubstantiated, making causal and inductive fallacies in its reasoning. In order to evaluate the recommendation in question, the author must provide evidence that determines that the reviews are representative of the views of the broader population, that there is a causal link between reviews and attendance, and that advertising would increase exposure to positive reviews.