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

Essay topics:

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."Based on a survey conducted by their own marketing department and certain comments by some reviewers, the director made flawed reasoning and drew unconvincing conclusions about the problems responsible for their shrinking market.

In the above statement, the author states that the recent recession of the Super Screen Movie is due to the lack of budget to the advertisement. Thus, the author concludes that more share of the budget from the company should be allocated to the advertisement. While supporting the argument, the author makes numerous assumptions that is not taken for granted. Thus, further evidence pertatining to make his assertion more valid is required.

Firstly, the author assumes that the decrease of viewers for the Super Screen Movie indicates the poor advertisement ability by the company. However, it may not be the case. The author asserts the few people watching their movies is their specific problem. However, the nation could be suffering from recession, leading people to constrain their private budget allocated to enjoy cultural activities. In addition, the movie quality might, in fact, not be as good as other production made movies. The reviews itself could be based on a mere number of reviews. Although a great percentage of that reviews commented positively, the number itself could be very small. Therefore, the advertisement's quality could not be to be blamed for. Thus, further evidence pertaining to the other reasons for the decrease of viewers for the Super Screen movies should be checked.

Secondly, the poor quality that the Super Screen Movie assumes for their advertising strength is not conclusively proven. The movie viewers who watch their movie might share a similar characteristic. They might acknowledge the Super Screen Movie's advertisement the best among other production. However, those viewers watching their movie might be reluctant to share a good movie with others because of their selfishness, trying to watch a good movie only by themselves. The innate characteristics of the viewers is not a thing that the production can change through their improving of the advertisements. As such, more detailed evidence of the movie's quality, and the research over the viewer's characteristics should be propounded to validate the author's claim.

Lastly, the author assumes that the budget allocating more toward the advertisement sector will not hamper the movie's quality. However, if the company actually do pay more attention to the advertising itself, the less attention the movie makings will naturally get could be a natural process. Thus, it could lead to more serious deficit of the viewers. Therefore, whether the movie production's quality is guaranteed even with more allocation of budget shared to the advertisement should be validated in order to strengthen the advertising director's claim.

In sum, the author's claim is not conclusively proven as in its current form. Further evidence pertaining to the other reasons available to the decreased viewers, the movie's quality compared to other production's movies, and the attention the movie production will get after allocating more financial support toward the advertising sector should be propounded to assert the director's assertion more aggresively.

Votes
Average: 5 (3 votes)
Essay Categories

Comments

Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...s assertion more valid is required. Firstly, the author assumes that the dec...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...er Screen movies should be checked. Secondly, the poor quality that the Supe...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...nded to validate the authors claim. Lastly, the author assumes that the budg...
^^^^^
Line 9, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...en the advertising directors claim. In sum, the authors claim is not conclus...
^^^^^
Line 9, column 83, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Further,
...lusively proven as in its current form. Further evidence pertaining to the other reason...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 378, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'directors'' or 'director's'?
Suggestion: directors'; director's
...ctor should be propounded to assert the directors assertion more aggresively.
^^^^^^^^^

Discourse Markers used:
['actually', 'first', 'firstly', 'however', 'if', 'lastly', 'may', 'second', 'secondly', 'so', 'then', 'therefore', 'thus', 'while', 'after all', 'in addition', 'in fact']

Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments

Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.258064516129 0.25644967241 101% => OK
Verbs: 0.151802656546 0.15541462614 98% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0796963946869 0.0836205057962 95% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0664136622391 0.0520304965353 128% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0322580645161 0.0272364105082 118% => OK
Prepositions: 0.0986717267552 0.125424944231 79% => OK
Participles: 0.0512333965844 0.0416121511921 123% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.91005402088 2.79052419416 104% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0360531309298 0.026700313972 135% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.001811407834 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.132827324478 0.113004496875 118% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0379506641366 0.0255425247493 149% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.00379506641366 0.0127820249294 30% => Some subClauses wanted starting by 'Which, Who, What, Whom, Whose.....'

Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 3075.0 2731.13054187 113% => OK
No of words: 475.0 446.07635468 106% => OK
Chars per words: 6.47368421053 6.12365571057 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.66845742379 4.57801047555 102% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.425263157895 0.378187486979 112% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.313684210526 0.287650121315 109% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.221052631579 0.208842608468 106% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.151578947368 0.135150697306 112% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.91005402088 2.79052419416 104% => OK
Unique words: 201.0 207.018472906 97% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.423157894737 0.469332199767 90% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
Word variations: 47.184369494 52.1807786196 90% => OK
How many sentences: 25.0 20.039408867 125% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 23.2022227129 82% => OK
Sentence length SD: 59.7762494641 57.7814097925 103% => OK
Chars per sentence: 123.0 141.986410481 87% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.0 23.2022227129 82% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.68 0.724660767414 94% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 3.58251231527 167% => OK
Readability: 50.3684210526 51.9672348444 97% => OK
Elegance: 1.62878787879 1.8405768891 88% => OK

Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.473434979806 0.441005458295 107% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.141690036711 0.135418324435 105% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.108530154086 0.0829849096947 131% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.572677116754 0.58762219726 97% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.152462182535 0.147661913831 103% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.211100116983 0.193483328276 109% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.103514379845 0.0970749176394 107% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.631562211642 0.42659136922 148% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0355116756029 0.0774707102158 46% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.371469666859 0.312017818177 119% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0399605682657 0.0698173142475 57% => The ideas may be duplicated in paragraphs.

Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 14.0 8.33743842365 168% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.87684729064 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.82512315271 83% => OK
Positive topic words: 14.0 6.46551724138 217% => OK
Negative topic words: 6.0 5.36822660099 112% => OK
Neutral topic words: 4.0 2.82389162562 142% => OK
Total topic words: 24.0 14.657635468 164% => 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.

argument 1 -- not exactly

argument 2 -- not exactly

argument 3 -- not OK
--------------------
Let's analyze the structure of the statement and argue accordingly:

condition 1:
the percentage of positive reviews by movie reviewers about specific Super Screen movies actually increased during the past year. //Suppose the company has 10 movies in last year, 2 of the movies got good percentage of positive reviews by movie reviewers, still there are 8 movies got normal or bad reviews.

condition 2:
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. //maybe people had got those good reviews, but they may watch movies online or rent DVD or on phone...

conclusion:
Super Screen should therefore allocate a greater share of its budget next year to reaching the public through advertising. //first, it may already have big budget during the past year; //second, part of your argument 1

----------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 25 15
No. of Words: 475 350
No. of Characters: 2518 1500
No. of Different Words: 193 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.668 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.301 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.848 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 198 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 148 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 93 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 68 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 19 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.212 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.6 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.326 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.497 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.083 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5