The arguement blames insufficient and ineffective marketing to be the culprit for the decline in the number of movie goers observed during the past year and makes a reccomendation to allocate more budget to marketing efforts as a consequence.
The arguement blames insufficient and ineffective marketing to be the culprit for the decline in the number of movie goers observed during the past year and makes a reccomendation to allocate more budget to marketing efforts as a consequence. This arguement is flawed in various ways, among which three stand out the most as detailed below.
First, the arguement fails to quantify any of the assertions made, which makes it difficult for the readers to gauge the severity of the problem. When we say fewer people attended last year, does that mean 10 fewer people or 200 fewer people? What was the number of viewers the previous year to begin with? The same criticism holds for the percentage of positive reviews and the share of budget to be allocated next year. Without quantification, it is not clear whether the drop in the number of movie goers necessitates an action whatsoever. The arguement would have been stronger had it provided data revealing the magnitude of such assertions to help in measuring the impact.
Second, the arguement implicitly assumes that insufficient advertising is the only reason explaining the downtrend in the number of movie goers during the past year. While these may be very well correlated, without validation, one cannot assume this to be true. There may be many other factors contributing to the decline in the number of movie goers. For example, a new competitor may have entered the movie production market during the past year outperforming Super Screen Movie Production Company. New trends and genres may have been introduced during the past year driving people toward watching different movies than they used to. Some of the regular viewers may have lost their jobs during the past year and consequently in paring down their entertainment budget decided not to go to the movies any longer. As seen, one can think of many other alternatives to explain the decline in the number of movie viewers. Therefore, the arguement cannot assume this to be a fact without validating the assumption. In this regard, the arguement would have been strengthened had it produced various surveys and studies understanding the effect of each of these variables seperately.
Last but not least, the arguement does not provide any granular information about the origin and content of the movie reviews. How can one verify if these reviews are genuine? Today, it is widely known that many companies, driven by a ceratin agenda, employ movie reviewers, whether professionals or dilletantes, to provide negative or positive feedback on a certain movie. Has Super Screen Movie Production Company verified the authenticity of these reviews? Furthermore, the arguement assumes that the content of these reviews does not prevail any negativity about the quality of their movies. Without understanding the content of the hortatory reviews, it is difficult to judge what the viewers find compelling in the movies; it could be the cast, the plot, the duration of the movie, the theatre experience, or any other possible reason. The arguement would have been strengthened had it provided more granular data about the origin and the content of these movie reviews.
To sum up, the arguement is found to be fallacious due to a number of unfounded assumptions made by the advertising director. As such, the arguement fails to provide convincing evidence in making its final reccomendation to allcoate more budget for advertising and marketing efforts next year.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 304, Rule ID: CD_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun 'stand' seems to be countable, so consider using: 'stands'.
Suggestion: stands
...awed in various ways, among which three stand out the most as detailed below. Firs...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 637, Rule ID: SOME_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'some'.
Suggestion: Some
...ing different movies than they used to. Some of the regular viewers may have lost their job...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, consequently, first, furthermore, if, may, second, so, then, therefore, well, while, for example, such as, to begin with, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.6327345309 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.9520958084 100% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 11.1786427146 125% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 13.6137724551 51% => OK
Pronoun: 28.0 28.8173652695 97% => OK
Preposition: 83.0 55.5748502994 149% => OK
Nominalization: 26.0 16.3942115768 159% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2919.0 2260.96107784 129% => OK
No of words: 565.0 441.139720559 128% => OK
Chars per words: 5.16637168142 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.87542086881 4.56307096286 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.82568242471 2.78398813304 101% => OK
Unique words: 260.0 204.123752495 127% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.46017699115 0.468620217663 98% => OK
syllable_count: 909.9 705.55239521 129% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Interrogative: 3.0 0.471057884232 637% => OK
Article: 16.0 8.76447105788 183% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.22255489022 166% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 26.0 19.7664670659 132% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 47.1210200711 57.8364921388 81% => OK
Chars per sentence: 112.269230769 119.503703932 94% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.7307692308 23.324526521 93% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.23076923077 5.70786347227 92% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 15.0 8.20758483034 183% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.67664670659 107% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.451652421095 0.218282227539 207% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.121680163952 0.0743258471296 164% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.189736062931 0.0701772020484 270% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.306829214908 0.128457276422 239% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.225337374088 0.0628817314937 358% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.8 14.3799401198 96% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 48.3550499002 104% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.197005988 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.71 12.5979740519 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.42 8.32208582834 101% => OK
difficult_words: 134.0 98.500998004 136% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 12.3882235529 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 Out of 6
---------------------
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.