Hey everyone I am non-native and I struggle with the AWA part. I need to have a minimum of 3.0 to apply for my masters. Can you please evaluate my writing from POWERPREP TEST 2?
I know that on ISSUE TOPIC, I escaped the subject and did not correlate with the leadership part which is very important. Also, I struggle with time and the final part was really rushed. Still, is it enough for a 3.0 if this happens on the real test?

ARGUMENT TOPIC: 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 Super Screen Movie Production Company's advertising director informs in this memo that the investment in advertising should increase since there was a decline in the audiences last year but also an increased percentage of positive reviews. This conclusion lies in unwarranted assumptions that need to be carefully analyzed.
The argument assumes that the fact that the audience declined and positive reviews increased this year is related with an advertising weakness. First of all, it doesn't mention the values of advertising investment in the last years. If the argument proved that indeed in the year where fewer people attended Super Screen-produced movies there was less investment in marketing comparing to others years, this inference would be strengthened. If the advertising investment was the same in the last years, then the audiences decline would most probably be related to the movie's quality. Perhaps a lot of people that were aware of the company's movies considered there was a decrease in quality and stopped watching. This would also explain the increased number of good reviews since if people who were less satisfied with movies' quality stopped watching it, consequently they would stop giving negative reviews as well. Therefore, the percentage of positive reviews would higher up. This statement relies on logical inferences that would have to be confirmed with inquiries to people that stopped attending Super Screen-produced movies (asking the reasons why they stopped watching).
In addition, the conclusion itself has no evidence to support it. It relies on the assumption that if an advertising investment is done then audiences will increase. This conclusion can only be made if they are sure that the movie's quality is good (doing inquiries to the audience/former audience as explained above) but also that it's appealing to most people. Perhaps movies are indeed of good quality but also limited to one category. For example, if Super Screen Movie are mainly superheroes movies, they will attract only that kind of audience. This means that even if they invest in advertising it won't increase significantly the audience's levels. In this case, it would be a problem of movies variety.
In conclusion, it is lacking very important information that could be obtained with inquiries and surveys to Super Movie-produced movie viewers as well as former viewers regarding to factors like company advertising (how did they got to know the production company), movie quality, variety and level of satisfaction. Only then we can make a precise conclusion.


ISSUE TOPIC: The best way for a society to prepare its young people for leadership in government, industry or other fields is by instilling in them a sense of cooperation, not competion

At the moment is year 2021 and we can see the consequences of capitalism gone wrong. An apparent free market that is not really free as it is dominated and monopolized by big companies. A high proportion of richness concentrated in a few percentages of the population. Given these facts it is obvious that the current business market needs to change and our future entrepreneurs should adopt different methodologies than what is happening now. Therefore, I do agree that we need to change young people's ambitions, prioritizing the goal of living harmoniously in society. Despite that, I cannot completely agree since I do believe that competition sometimes can be healthy and important in global business.
I have to admit that competition is a great way to push you to the limits and achieve better results. At the same time, it stems negative factors such as envy, bad workplace environment, burns out because of the continuing pressure. Which means it affects mental health. The question is: is it worthy to prioritize money and results over mental health? Initially some would reply "hell yeah" but eventually would come to an understanding that if you don't have time to spend your money, then it's not worthy having that much money. I can relate with this situation since my first job as a degree person was in a private practice where I would earn a high monthly income but would work over 40h/week, had reunions, reports' deadlines and even staff evaluation that caused many stress. The result? In my second year of work, I switched to a job where I would earn less money but only worked 35h/week.
Even though I am against extreme competition in business, I don't agree that every institution should be public or commanded by the same organ. I advocate that it should be a cooperation in competition. Which means that products and prices should compete in order to get the best quality and price but that it shouldn't matter who profits more between two successful companies, for example. In this sense, we would create way more companies in the future and the richness would be split more uniformly between the population. I agree that young people should be prepared to be entrepreneurs in every aspect of their life, which means being original and creative but also with respect form others' work.