"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."

The argument states that the Super Screen should invest a large proprtion of their budget in advertising their movies because they feel that the public is not aware of it's good qualitiy films . The argument in its current form seems fundamentally flawed and hence, unconvincing. The support provided for the conclusion is weak and the argument makes too many unwarranted assumptions.
Firstly, I do not speculate the statistics provided to us in this argument which states that the least number of people had attended Super Screen produced movies during the previous year. I also believe the argument's fact that the percentage of positive reviews, on the contrary, rose during the past year. But, what seems to make this argument erroneous is the assumption which says that these positive reviews are not being acknowledged by potenitial viewers. The argument fails to provide us information on the kind of movies produced by the Super Screen company. Are it's movies more inclined towards romance, horror, thriller or comedy? Maybe the viewers like the genre of movies produced by the Super Screen and their definition of 'good quality movies' may be exclusive for that particular category of movies only. So, the reason for a rise in positive reviews may be because the company's work during the past year for it's genre of movies was one of the best, obviously.
Secondly, the fact that there is a decline in the number of viewers can be because of the increased ticket prices ,which is valid because their movie quality may have been at the peak the previous year (as discussed in the passage above) which may have caused many of Super Screen's viewers to shift to Pirate Websites where the company's movies can be viewed for free at the comfort of their homes.
I feel that instead of shelling out a huge sum from their budget on something that probably won't yeild the results they expect, they can instead donate that money to the poor and needy, to oprhanges, to elderly homes, etc. This act can earn their company a good name!
In the final analysis, the arguments comes to a cursory conclusion. I strongly disagree with the company's plan to spend a huge amount of money in advertising it's movies alone. The good reviews of their movies would've certainly met the eyes of many potenital viewers, but due to a probable surge in the theatre tickets, the count of positive reviews turned out to be inversely proportional to the number of viewers or potenital viewers.