"The following is taken from a memo from the advertising director of the Super Screen Movie Production Company. "According to a recent report from 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 past year. Clearly, the contents of these reviews are not reaching enough of our prospective viewers. Thus, 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. Super Screen should therefore allocate a greater share of its budget next year to reaching the public through advertising."
The author concludes that more expenditure on advertising is likely to attract greater viewership of super screen produced movies. His argument may seem logical and convicing at first glance, however, the author needs to answer a few questions and clarify things to bolster his claim.
Firstly, the author states that the viewership was lower during the past year as compared to the previous year and this he sees as a contradiction to the percentage of positive reviews. The word "yet" on the fourth line of second paragraph is indicatve of that. However, keenly examining the scenario, it only seems obvious and not contradictory that the percentage of positive reviews has gone up as the total number of viewers have gone down. In fact, the viewers who have been retained or are new would have liked previous movies by super screen and as such the number of positive feedback remained the same whereas the total being reduced, the percentage has gone higher. It would be helpful to know if the number of positive reviews have gone higher and not the percentage.
Secondly, the author claims that the positive reviews are not reaching prospective viewers. It would be helpful to know who are these prospective viewers and what do they actually want to see. The author has concluded since they haven't come to watch the movies, they also haven't read the reviews. It is very hasty conclusion to make without knowing those prospective viewers and their preferences as it is highly likely that they came accross those "positive" reviews and then chose to not watch the movie since "positive" is a subjective matter. Horror movies might be a positive experience for someone and totally daunting for other person - something that he doesn't enjoy.
Thirdly, it is important to understand the genre of these movies. Were the movies produced in previous years were from the same genre or different genres. And then do a market analysis of which is more commonly preferred among the viewers. In such a scenario, no matter how much you advertise is not going to help. What kind of movies you produce and "how" you adverstise them is more relevant.
This brings me to my fourth and final point, which is to undertand the nature of adverstisements that the author is talking about. Ultimate aim of advertising is to create more awareness if the right medium is not used to target the prospective viewers then no matter how much Sper screen spends on avertising, it won't be effective until the medium chosen is the right one. For example, if the maximum viewerhip of such moview is senior citizens who
e
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 230, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: haven't
...ee. The author has concluded since they havent come to watch the movies, they also hav...
^^^^^^
Line 5, column 273, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: haven't
...ent come to watch the movies, they also havent read the reviews. It is very hasty conc...
^^^^^^
Line 5, column 683, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...ng for other person - something that he doesnt enjoy. Thirdly, it is important to u...
^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['actually', 'also', 'first', 'firstly', 'however', 'if', 'may', 'second', 'secondly', 'so', 'then', 'third', 'thirdly', 'whereas', 'for example', 'in fact', 'kind of', 'talking about']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.198396793587 0.25644967241 77% => OK
Verbs: 0.188376753507 0.15541462614 121% => OK
Adjectives: 0.114228456914 0.0836205057962 137% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0521042084168 0.0520304965353 100% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0440881763527 0.0272364105082 162% => Less pronouns wanted. Try not to use 'you, I, they, he...' as the subject of a sentence
Prepositions: 0.100200400802 0.125424944231 80% => OK
Participles: 0.0460921843687 0.0416121511921 111% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.83465383813 2.79052419416 102% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0340681362725 0.026700313972 128% => OK
Particles: 0.00200400801603 0.001811407834 111% => OK
Determiners: 0.102204408818 0.113004496875 90% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0100200400802 0.0255425247493 39% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0220440881764 0.0127820249294 172% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2641.0 2731.13054187 97% => OK
No of words: 442.0 446.07635468 99% => OK
Chars per words: 5.97511312217 6.12365571057 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.58517132086 4.57801047555 100% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.371040723982 0.378187486979 98% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.255656108597 0.287650121315 89% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.180995475113 0.208842608468 87% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.106334841629 0.135150697306 79% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.83465383813 2.79052419416 102% => OK
Unique words: 221.0 207.018472906 107% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.5 0.469332199767 107% => OK
Word variations: 56.5207976213 52.1807786196 108% => OK
How many sentences: 20.0 20.039408867 100% => OK
Sentence length: 22.1 23.2022227129 95% => OK
Sentence length SD: 58.9504028824 57.7814097925 102% => OK
Chars per sentence: 132.05 141.986410481 93% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.1 23.2022227129 95% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.9 0.724660767414 124% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 3.58251231527 84% => OK
Readability: 47.6656108597 51.9672348444 92% => OK
Elegance: 1.21126760563 1.8405768891 66% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.413678626438 0.441005458295 94% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.139017794458 0.135418324435 103% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0994653048364 0.0829849096947 120% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.571524984163 0.58762219726 97% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.145235116405 0.147661913831 98% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.167453501501 0.193483328276 87% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0826679018931 0.0970749176394 85% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.349576746438 0.42659136922 82% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0653798079892 0.0774707102158 84% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.266171710875 0.312017818177 85% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0556217504738 0.0698173142475 80% => The ideas may be duplicated in paragraphs.
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.33743842365 108% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.87684729064 58% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.82512315271 145% => OK
Positive topic words: 8.0 6.46551724138 124% => OK
Negative topic words: 4.0 5.36822660099 75% => OK
Neutral topic words: 4.0 2.82389162562 142% => OK
Total topic words: 16.0 14.657635468 109% => 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.