The argument claims that young people should be instilled with a sense of cooperation instead of competition, in order to prepare them for future leadership in the working world, specifically leadership jobs in government or industry. I agree with this claim, as I believe instilling cooperation in young people is condusive to leading a team or group in society. Cooperative skills are much more relevant to society, and will instill a want to improve the world instead of compete with others to rise to the top, an often toxic mindset.

I believe a sense of cooperation is useful for young people to learn, since in the very basic sense it will teach young people how to effectively work together and create effective solutions and answers together. This model of working together is also extremely analogous to real industry jobs, where employees often work together to create solutions. In schools currently, most students are competing with each other for the best grades and rankings, and are mostly not able to work together on assignments or assessments. In contrats, in real life jobs, people working together is often preferable to those people working apart, as when people work together, they are more likely to bring their unique experiences together to come up with an even better answer than those employees would have on their own. However, working together is a skill that must be learned, as students must learn how to properly divy up work, talk through their thinking and solutions, and generally work to combine their work together. These are not skills that come from nowhere, they must be taught and practiced in schools to have students fully master them. Students should be instilled with a sense of cooperation during their formative years, as the skills learned from working together are extremely important, and must be learned in order to be fully mastered.

Additionally, I believe that young people should be instilled with a sense of cooperation over competition, as the skills of working together create a more cohesive society and workplace. If students are taught to be competitive, once they reach the workplace, they will view their jobs as a competition, and their coworkers as their competitors. Being instilled with a sense of competition as a young person will cause their adult working selves to employ many toxic competitive strategies to rise forward in the working world. Many of these strategies are not condusive to the whole team, as they may include sabotaging other coworkers, or more indirectly not helping them or feeding them wrong information, so that they can get ahead of those coworkers. Some might argue that this is exactly how we prepare young people for a corporate world, but a corporate world in which everyone is toxic and competitive towards each other is not a productive workplace, and will in turn cause the overall quality of work caused by these competitive coworkers to be lower than if they worked together. This is especially true for leaders, as a competitive leader will not want to foster the people they lead, instead looking to further their own roles. A competitive leader will also encourage the people they lead to be competitive as well, as they know their leader does not value cooperation. In contrast, young people inbued with a sense of cooperation throughout their lives will be much more likely to be plesant to their fellow coworkers, and view them as friends who they can work with to get the best work done. A cooperative leader will teach their workers that they need to cooperate to be successful, and thus will create a workplace that is more condusive to working together and coming up with solutions as a team, instead of working against each other to gain the favor of the leader. In short, instilling future leaders with a sense of cooperation will cause the groups they lead to be cooperative, and in return doing much more productive work.

Finally, younger people should be instilled with a sense of cooperation, as it is much more plesant to work with people who are cooperative, instead of competitive. Working with someone who is competitive is bound to create a sense of anxiety, as the person will constantly worry that their competitive boss or teammate is out to sabotage them in order to do better. This sense of dread is extremely toxic to workplaces, and is bound to make the quality of work generated by employees to be much lower. In addition, qualified workers will be much more likely to want to work under someone who is cooperative and will help them grow their skills, as it is a much more positive and enriching experience than working in an environment that is competitive and constantly having to make sure you are more successful than your peers. Future leaders should strive to have the best and smartest people working under them, and these smart people will not be attracted to a toxic environment when they could be working somewhere more respectful and plesant. People of the opposing viewpoing might argue that toxicity of an environment is not related to the success of a leader, but I believe that the best work is done in an environment where employees feel safe, and aren't constantly in fear of being sabotaged. We should be teaching future leaders of government and industry to create environments that are not only condusive to creating the best work, but for sustaining employee morale and making sure they don't get burnt out due to the toxicity of the work environment. This kind of plesant work environment is much more condusive to the ideas of cooperation than competition, and as such, young people should be inbued with a sense of cooperation to foster these environments.

In conclusion, in order to prepare our future leaders to create sensible and plesant work environments in which employees feel safe to work with each other and develop the best solutions for their jobs, leaders must be instilled with a sense of cooperation. Leaders with this sense of cooperation as opposed to competition will be able to lead workers into being more productive, as well as easier to work with, allowing them to successfully lead a team into doing well and being happy about it.

In this memo by the advertising director of the Super Screen Movie Production Company, the author argues that the reason fewer people are watching movies from the production company isn't the lack of quality of the movies, but rather the lack of recognition of these movies by the general public, and therefore the company should spend a greater share of their budget on advertising in the following year. All though this is a reasonable idea, there are many questions that need to be answers in order to decide whether this solution is the best one. The movie studio needs to figure out why exactly people aren't seeing their movies, and the data presented by the memo is not enough to qualify their claims.

One main question that needs to be answered is regarding the movie reviewers compared to the general audience, specifically regarding how the two groups intersect. The advertising director believes that popuation of movie reviewers is representative distribution of people who generally watch movies. This thought however is severely flawed, as movie reviewers are generally interested in different facets of movies than regular movie watchers are. Movie reviewers in general care a lot about the specific stylistic choices of movies, while a regular person that watches movies will be most concerned with the entertainment value of the movie. All though the movie reviewers may agree that the movies are higher quality this year, the average person that watches movies may not agree with this statement, so the production company must figure out if the general population of people who would watch their movies believe their movies to maintain the same quality that they have in previous years.

Additionally, the company must figure out if actually allocating more money into advertising is the way to draw more viewers to the company's movies. If the director's idea that the "public lack of awareness that movies of good quality are available" is true, then it is feasable to think that buying more advertisements would create more of an awareness to the movies of the company, and in turn cause more people to watch the movies. However, there is no specific evidence that states that people are generally unaware of the studio's movies, just the statement that the reviews for the movies are high. However, as discussed previously, this tells us little about the actual cause for a decline in viewership. The production company needs to do a proper survey of a random sample of the population to determine if there are a significant number of people who have not heard of the company's movies. In addition, throwing money at the problem with no further changes is hardly ever the way to accomplish change. If it is found that a significant number of people have not heard of this company's movies, the company should figure out if there is a specific demographic they are missing, and in turn figure out what avenues of advertising they need to focus on in order to reach this demographic. For example, if they learned that the younger demographic did not know about their movies, they could advertise on platforms such as Instagram, which many young people use. The company should figure out if they actually missed people, and how to specifically reach people they missed intelligently, instead of just throwing more money at the situation.

Finally, the movie studio needs to figure out what is specifically causing their lack of viewership. The memo states that reviews are good, so the problem must be in advertising, but there are many other reasons why the movie viewership may have declined. For example, it is possible that movie viewership in general has declined, with more people opting to watch movies on Netflix or Youtube instead. If this were the case, then the movie studio should look into distributing on these platforms instead. Additionally, there may be some other production company that is creating more popular and relevant movies, and all though the Super Screen Movie Production Company's movies are good, people are opting to see the other company's instead. A proper analysis on the state of movie watching must be conducted before any ideas are drawn regarding why people aren't watching the specific studio's movies.

In conclusion, the movie production company makes a claim that they need more advertising in order to reach more people, but they need to do much more research on the demographic of movie viewers, as well as the general population to figure out why people aren't watching their movies. It is only after proper research and polling is conducted that the company can decide on a proper solution to getting more viewers.