"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."
Fewer people attended Super Screen produced movies than in any other year even though the percentage of positive reviews has increased. The author has concluded that this is because of the public's lack of awareness that movies of good quality are available and therefore Super-Screen should increase their advertising budgets. However thhe conclusion made by the author is fundamentally flawed and not backed up by enough proof, hence not reasonable.
The author has argued that even though the percentage of positive reviews has increased about Super Screen Movies, the number of people that attend the movies have reduced. The author does not state the percentage of positive reviews for any year, there might be only a paltry increase in the number of positive reviews, since there's no significant increase the people wouldn't have come.Similarly the number of people who attended the screening in any of the year is unknown, therefore there might be only a marginalized dip.
The author argues the that the percentage of postive reviews by movie reviewers have increased, but the genuinity, diversity as well as the number of reviewers are unknown, if there are only 2 reviewers, the percentage of positive reviewes would obviously be more. Ultimately, we do not know whether the movie is good or there are people who were paid to review the movie as good. Therefore more research should be done on the reviewers who have reviewed the movie.
The author attacks the public's lack of awareness that movies that good quality are available, but if the movie was genuinely good, the word of mouth is enough and can more than compensate for the lack of advertisment by the company, but that is not the case here. The word of mouth might be that the movie was bad, so only fewer people attended the screening.
Therefore more research has to be done into the reviewers, who reviewed the movie and also a check on the diversity, genuinity and also the number of reviewers to know whether the movies produced by Super-Screen are good. Also the number of people who visited the screening thisyear and last year should be known to compare properly. Ithe Super-screen should not increase the budget for adverstising
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 328, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: However,
...uld increase their advertising budgets. However thhe conclusion made by the author is f...
^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...by enough proof, hence not reasonable. The author has argued that even though t...
^^^
Line 3, column 328, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: there's
...n the number of positive reviews, since theres no significant increase the people woul...
^^^^^^
Line 3, column 370, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: wouldn't
...eres no significant increase the people wouldnt have come.Similarly the number of peopl...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 388, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: Similarly
...t increase the people wouldnt have come.Similarly the number of people who attended the s...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 388, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Similarly,
...t increase the people wouldnt have come.Similarly the number of people who attended the s...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ere might be only a marginalized dip. The author argues the that the percentag...
^^^
Line 5, column 125, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... increased, but the genuinity, diversity as well as the number of reviewers are u...
^^
Line 5, column 383, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Therefore,
... were paid to review the movie as good. Therefore more research should be done on the rev...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 66, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...blics lack of awareness that movies that good quality are available, but if the m...
^^
Line 7, column 164, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ly good, the word of mouth is enough and can more than compensate for the lack of...
^^
Line 9, column 1, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Therefore,
...ewer people attended the screening. Therefore more research has to be done into the r...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 223, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Also,
...vies produced by Super-Screen are good. Also the number of people who visited the sc...
^^^^
Line 9, column 274, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...mber of people who visited the screening thisyear and last year should be known t...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, hence, however, if, similarly, so, therefore, well, as to, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 19.6327345309 112% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.9520958084 69% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 13.6137724551 103% => OK
Pronoun: 12.0 28.8173652695 42% => OK
Preposition: 37.0 55.5748502994 67% => OK
Nominalization: 1.0 16.3942115768 6% => More nominalization wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1850.0 2260.96107784 82% => OK
No of words: 369.0 441.139720559 84% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.0135501355 5.12650576532 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.38284983912 4.56307096286 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.65070021261 2.78398813304 95% => OK
Unique words: 150.0 204.123752495 73% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.406504065041 0.468620217663 87% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 589.5 705.55239521 84% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 4.96107784431 20% => OK
Interrogative: 1.0 0.471057884232 212% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.22255489022 24% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 19.7664670659 66% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 28.0 22.8473053892 123% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 82.2885671526 57.8364921388 142% => OK
Chars per sentence: 142.307692308 119.503703932 119% => OK
Words per sentence: 28.3846153846 23.324526521 122% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.15384615385 5.70786347227 108% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 14.0 5.25449101796 266% => Less language errors wanted.
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 6.88822355289 44% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.67664670659 21% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.420345692677 0.218282227539 193% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.188353173092 0.0743258471296 253% => Sentence topic similarity is high.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.137919675608 0.0701772020484 197% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.266251046483 0.128457276422 207% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0714784961344 0.0628817314937 114% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.4 14.3799401198 114% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 43.06 48.3550499002 89% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 12.197005988 116% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.07 12.5979740519 96% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.89 8.32208582834 95% => OK
difficult_words: 67.0 98.500998004 68% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 12.3882235529 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.2 11.1389221557 119% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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: 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.