The following is taken from a memo from the advertising director of the Silver Screen Movie Production Company.  

　　"According to a recent report from our marketing department, fewer people attended movies produced by Silver Screen during the past year than in any other year.  And yet the percentage of generally favorable comments by movie reviewers about specific Silver Screen movies actually increased during this period.  Clearly, the contents of these reviews are not reaching enough of our prospective viewers; so 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.  Silver Screen should therefore spend more of its budget next year on reaching the public through advertising and less on producing new movies."  

　　This argument states the problem but the conclusion is not compatible to the rest of the statement.  

　　Silver Screen recognized that fewer people attended movies in the studied year.  I would recommend that they find out if this was happening with the entire movie market.  It might of have been a poor year for movies for all movie companies.  

　　Silver Screen recognized that of the movies that they did, they received favorable reviews.  It should be concluded that they are doing well with the movies that they are making.  Obviously, they are on track with the consumer in what they are producing.  

　　I understand the conclusion that more people need to be exposed to the movies available for viewing.  The last statement focuses on the fact that advertising needs to be increased, but does it by cutting production costs.  This is wrong, instead of continuing what is working the company plans on focusing on advertising while taking away from producing.  The consumers like the movies they make.  If Silver Screen focuses their funds with advertising, producing funds will suffer.  It will not matter how much advertising is done, if it is a poorly produced movie, nobody will want to go?  Eventually, Silver Screen will get the reputation of producing bad movies.  There has to be some compromise which doesn't hurt producing costs.  

　　Commentary  

　　This response is flawed.  It makes two points, the first of which is undeveloped (paragraph 2) and the second of which (the remainder of the essay) is mainly discussion rather than analysis, although some meager analysis is present.  The author also offers a questionable assumption of his or her own in stating in paragraph 4 that "the consumers like the movies they make."  Overall, there is nothing incisive or convincing in this paper.  It is loosely organized and not well developed.  

　　The response is clear; what errors there are never interfere with a reader's understanding, but there are frequent minor errors in language, syntax, and punctuation.  

　　For all of these reasons, the response is clearly limited and deserves a score of 3.