The argument claims that Super Screen movies are not getting enough viewers due to lack of awareness of the quality of the movie; by increasing
the budget for advertising, the number of viewers will increase. However, this argument has many flaws which need to evalutated before the conclusion is to be considered.
According to the argument, fewer people attended Super Screen movies than the past year. Clearly, the metric used here is the total number of people for all the movies. Evaluting without more information, this metric could be deceptive. For example, if Super Screen released 7 movies two years ago and 3 movies the past year, the number of people would obviously decrease. A better metric would be the average number of people attending per movie.
The advertising director claims that the percentage of positive reviews for Super Screen movies by movie reviewers has increased in the past year. However, the director has not mentioned by how much. For all we know, the percentage could have gone up from 1% to 2%. Futhermore, the advertising director has grouped a bunch of movies together to calculate the increase in positive reviews; it could be that one movie had great reviews while the other movies received pathetic reviews. Therefore, the percentage increase in reviews and also the reviews of the individual movies has to be found.
Finally, even if the movie was reviewed positively by a large number of movie reviewers, it could be a movie that did not interest the public. For example, a movie about a documentary might draw less attention than an action-filled movie. Advertising these movies to the public will have little effect.
The argument has several flaws which need to be addressed in order to evaluate the argument. Therefore, by addressing these flaws we will have greater insights to concur with the recommendation.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 144, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... the quality of the movie; by increasing the budget for advertising, the number o...
^^^
Line 4, column 347, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...vies the past year, the number of people would obviously decrease. A better metri...
^^
Line 8, column 55, Rule ID: LARGE_NUMBER_OF[1]
Message: Specify a number, remove phrase, or simply use 'many' or 'numerous'
Suggestion: many; numerous
...if the movie was reviewed positively by a large number of movie reviewers, it could be a movie th...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, however, if, so, therefore, while, as to, for example
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 19.6327345309 56% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.9520958084 93% => OK
Conjunction : 2.0 11.1786427146 18% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 6.0 13.6137724551 44% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 12.0 28.8173652695 42% => OK
Preposition: 41.0 55.5748502994 74% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 16.3942115768 49% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1565.0 2260.96107784 69% => OK
No of words: 307.0 441.139720559 70% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.09771986971 5.12650576532 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.18585898806 4.56307096286 92% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.69607686065 2.78398813304 97% => OK
Unique words: 153.0 204.123752495 75% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.498371335505 0.468620217663 106% => OK
syllable_count: 487.8 705.55239521 69% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 13.0 8.76447105788 148% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 19.7664670659 86% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 22.8473053892 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 46.8031288695 57.8364921388 81% => OK
Chars per sentence: 92.0588235294 119.503703932 77% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.0588235294 23.324526521 77% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.0 5.70786347227 70% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.20758483034 122% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 6.88822355289 29% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.227646939236 0.218282227539 104% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.083760408333 0.0743258471296 113% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.100733279402 0.0701772020484 144% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.107256214183 0.128457276422 83% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0761302653131 0.0628817314937 121% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.6 14.3799401198 81% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 48.3550499002 110% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 12.197005988 84% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.0 12.5979740519 95% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.92 8.32208582834 95% => OK
difficult_words: 66.0 98.500998004 67% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 12.3882235529 69% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.1389221557 83% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.