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.
The director in the memo analysis the situation of fewer attendance of the Super Screen and recommends that it should pay more attention to the advertising to attract more people to see the movie.
The first question concering the evaluation of the recommodation is the number of movies Super Screen (SS) produced last year. The director imputes the fewer attendance of movies to the bad advertisements, which might not be the case if SS actually produced fewer movies last year and attract more audiences in each of them. For instance, if SS produced only 3 movies last year, then the attendance fewer than any of the other years when SS produced more than 10 movies per year would not be striking at all. In this scenario, the problem would not exist and the recommendation would be less convincing.
Granted that the average attendance for each movie did decrease last year, the recommondation cannot be warranted unless the answer to the question whether public have good aware of the quality of the movie. The director in the memo only deduces that people should not realize that since the qualities of the movies increase according to the positive comments from the movie reviewers. In the argument, the director makes an unwarranted assumption that the movie attracting expert reviews should attract the whole public. It might be false since the general public may be aware of the positive feedback of the movie critics, but simply do not want to spend their money to see the movie of SS in the cinema because they do not relish the genre of documentary, which is most of movies produced by SS last year, or the contents are too profund to understand and not exciting. Under those circumstances, the recommendation would not be likely to work since the lack of awarness if not the primary reason that the prospective public do not see the movies.
Another question associated with the evaluation of the recommendation is that whether ot not the better alternatives exist. The author assume that SS should allocate greater amount of budget to appeal more views, where he assumes that SS has the ability to do so. Suppose that SS has faced a financial constraint period, it might not be feasible to put the policy into practice. On the other hand, there might be some more accessible methods to attract more attendances. For instance, SS could try to decrease the price of the tickets, or offer free or discounted tickets to students and senior citizens, or turn their future production into genres more accesible to the general public. The director should answer the question that why those methods could not work, or worse than the recommendation in his memo to fully convince that the superiority of his suggestions.
What is more, the recommendation that SS should increase its advertising budget comes from the director of advertising department, to fully convince his suggestions, a third party who is disintereted is necessary. To sum up, the recommendation would be better evaluated if the author could provide more information about the attendance, the reason for the fewer attendance (if it is true) and the comparison between his recommendation and other possible alternatives.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 156, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ld pay more attention to the advertising to attract more people to see the movie....
^^
Line 3, column 126, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...ies Super Screen SS produced last year. The director imputes the fewer attendance o...
^^^
Line 5, column 136, Rule ID: WHETHER[5]
Message: Can you shorten this phrase to just 'whether', or rephrase the sentence to avoid "the question"?
Suggestion: whether
...annot be warranted unless the answer to the question whether public have good aware of the quality o...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 551, Rule ID: GENERAL_XX[1]
Message: Use simply 'public'.
Suggestion: public
...ole public. It might be false since the general public may be aware of the positive feedback o...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 769, Rule ID: MOST_SOME_OF_NNS[1]
Message: After 'most of', you should use 'the' ('most of the movies') or simply say ''most movies''.
Suggestion: most of the movies; most movies
...lish the genre of documentary, which is most of movies produced by SS last year, or the conten...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 136, Rule ID: MASS_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Possible agreement error - use third-person verb forms for singular and mass nouns: 'assumes'.
Suggestion: assumes
...e better alternatives exist. The author assume that SS should allocate greater amount ...
^^^^^^
Line 7, column 672, Rule ID: GENERAL_XX[1]
Message: Use simply 'public'.
Suggestion: public
...ction into genres more accesible to the general public. The director should answer the questio...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, but, first, if, may, so, then, third, for instance, it is true, to sum up, what is more, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 19.6327345309 92% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 20.0 12.9520958084 154% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 11.1786427146 116% => OK
Relative clauses : 18.0 13.6137724551 132% => OK
Pronoun: 30.0 28.8173652695 104% => OK
Preposition: 63.0 55.5748502994 113% => OK
Nominalization: 30.0 16.3942115768 183% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2690.0 2260.96107784 119% => OK
No of words: 534.0 441.139720559 121% => OK
Chars per words: 5.03745318352 5.12650576532 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.80712388197 4.56307096286 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.85524461864 2.78398813304 103% => OK
Unique words: 235.0 204.123752495 115% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.440074906367 0.468620217663 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 830.7 705.55239521 118% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 4.96107784431 40% => OK
Interrogative: 2.0 0.471057884232 425% => OK
Article: 14.0 8.76447105788 160% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 5.0 1.67365269461 299% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 19.7664670659 91% => OK
Sentence length: 29.0 22.8473053892 127% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 61.0450400408 57.8364921388 106% => OK
Chars per sentence: 149.444444444 119.503703932 125% => OK
Words per sentence: 29.6666666667 23.324526521 127% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.44444444444 5.70786347227 113% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 7.0 5.25449101796 133% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.20758483034 134% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.88822355289 73% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.67664670659 43% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.211503091089 0.218282227539 97% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0738823838824 0.0743258471296 99% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0765698151883 0.0701772020484 109% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.13076764771 0.128457276422 102% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0639748110868 0.0628817314937 102% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.1 14.3799401198 119% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 42.04 48.3550499002 87% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.6 12.197005988 120% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.54 12.5979740519 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.33 8.32208582834 100% => OK
difficult_words: 110.0 98.500998004 112% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 12.3882235529 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.6 11.1389221557 122% => 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 -- 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.