The following is taken from a memo from the advertising director of the Super Screen Movie Production Company.
"According to a recent report by 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 last year. Clearly, the content of these reviews is not reaching enough of our prospective viewers. Thus, the problem lies not in the quality of our movies but with public's lack of awareness that movies of good quality are available. Super Screen should therefore allocate a greater quantity 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 following argument relies on the memo from the director of the Super Screen Movie Production Company. He argues that Super Screen should allocate a great share of its budget next year to imply more advertising in order to reach the public. In the past year, the amount of people attending movies produced by Super Screen decreased than in any other year. Director assumes that people are providing movies with positive reviews. He also unnecessarily supposes that problem of decreased viewership is due to lack of awareness of the movies rather than quality of the movies. Due to his presented reasons the director conceives his claim of implying greater share of money in advertising, which in my opinion provides no credible support and evidences for the same.
Firstly, the director fallaciously assume that the percentage of positive reviews has actually increased in the past year. It might be possible that these sanguine comments were done on movies produced previous than the last year. The director fails to provide a legitimate evidence. He states in his own memo that some specific movies achieved praise, it is not likely that all the movies were actually good in quality. Instead, most of the movies produced might not have reached the audience due to lack of quality. The director is found short to provide with additional details that could underpin his claim.
Even if the previous assumption stood credible, the succeeding supposition definitely falls short to support the author's claim. He assumes that the content of those reviews are not reaching enough of the prospective viewers. Thus, the problem lies not with the quality of their movies rather the public's lack of awareness that good quality movies are available. The director makes an unnecessary assumption that the movies produced were surely of very good quality. The director does not provide any of the evidences to demonstrate the same. There might be the probability that the movies produced by Super Screen during the past year, were not that good enough as compared to the movies they produced in previous years. Thus, resulting in decrease in the affluence of the viewers. The director clearly falls short in substantiating his putative claim.
To conclude, the director of the Super Screen Movie Production Company, argues his claim on hollow grounds. In order to disillusion his erroneous assumptions and to support his allegation, he needs to provide additional details, knowledge and credible evidences. The aforementioned evidences clearly falls short in the explanation of the same.
Discourse Markers used:
['actually', 'also', 'first', 'firstly', 'if', 'so', 'thus', 'in my opinion']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.245575221239 0.25644967241 96% => OK
Verbs: 0.152654867257 0.15541462614 98% => OK
Adjectives: 0.106194690265 0.0836205057962 127% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0575221238938 0.0520304965353 111% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0420353982301 0.0272364105082 154% => Less pronouns wanted. Try not to use 'you, I, they, he...' as the subject of a sentence
Prepositions: 0.137168141593 0.125424944231 109% => OK
Participles: 0.0398230088496 0.0416121511921 96% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.67044696301 2.79052419416 96% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0309734513274 0.026700313972 116% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.001811407834 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.119469026549 0.113004496875 106% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0110619469027 0.0255425247493 43% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.00663716814159 0.0127820249294 52% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2585.0 2731.13054187 95% => OK
No of words: 416.0 446.07635468 93% => OK
Chars per words: 6.21394230769 6.12365571057 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.51620172871 4.57801047555 99% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.40625 0.378187486979 107% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.3125 0.287650121315 109% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.242788461538 0.208842608468 116% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.115384615385 0.135150697306 85% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.67044696301 2.79052419416 96% => OK
Unique words: 186.0 207.018472906 90% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.447115384615 0.469332199767 95% => OK
Word variations: 48.1349287476 52.1807786196 92% => OK
How many sentences: 23.0 20.039408867 115% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0869565217 23.2022227129 78% => OK
Sentence length SD: 35.0589565558 57.7814097925 61% => OK
Chars per sentence: 112.391304348 141.986410481 79% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.0869565217 23.2022227129 78% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.347826086957 0.724660767414 48% => More Discourse Markers wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.14285714286 78% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 3.58251231527 0% => OK
Readability: 49.3369565217 51.9672348444 95% => OK
Elegance: 1.67543859649 1.8405768891 91% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.550991268423 0.441005458295 125% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.120242135626 0.135418324435 89% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0616423689994 0.0829849096947 74% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.553212641876 0.58762219726 94% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.108576762035 0.147661913831 74% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.246668778304 0.193483328276 127% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.122021204859 0.0970749176394 126% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.585791213646 0.42659136922 137% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0787620485734 0.0774707102158 102% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.422347094798 0.312017818177 135% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0921919686302 0.0698173142475 132% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 8.33743842365 156% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.87684729064 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.82512315271 83% => OK
Positive topic words: 12.0 6.46551724138 186% => OK
Negative topic words: 5.0 5.36822660099 93% => OK
Neutral topic words: 3.0 2.82389162562 106% => OK
Total topic words: 20.0 14.657635468 136% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 Out of 6 -- The score is based on the average performance of 20,000 argument essays. This e-grader is not smart enough to check on arguments.
---------------------
Note: This is not the final score. The e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.