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 super screen movie production company should allocate a great share of its budget next year in advertising about the good quality of his movies so as to counter decline in the number of viewers of super screen produced movies and to gain more prospective viewers. But there are certain flaws in he argument. I shall suggest ways to strengthen the argument.
Firstly, it has not been mentioned anywhere is the memorandum about the number of movies produced in the last few years compared with the statistical data of number of viewers in the last few years including this year. It might be possible that the number of movies produced last year were more than this year and thus the viewers count seems to be declining but it may although have increased. So, no clear statistical comparison has been mentioned in the memorandum.
Secondly, the author mentiones that the percentage of positive reviews has increased for specific movies from past year and is concluding from it that it is not the quality of production which is at flaw. There is a possibility that few movies produced were of good quality and is being appreciated by viewers whereas other might not be the same. The quality of production for some, can also be a reason for less number of viewers this year.
In similar context, even if the production company increases advertisement what is the surety that their viewers will increase. There might me some other production company in the market who is good competitor of Super Screen and is providing the similar quality which they are offering, what is that exceptional thing Super Screen is offering to public then. There should be a mention of this in the argument.
Conclusively, the argument would greatly be strengthened if author mentiones about the number of movies Super Screen produced in the past few years compared to this year along with the mention of the number of viewers. Also, the number of positive reviews increased only for specific movies and not for all, it may be a sign that quality of all the movies was not similar or it might not hold good quality for some. So, if even the Super Screen Production Company increses its budget next year to advertising about its quality, what is the surety that its viewers will increase. On the contrary, any other production comapny might also be giving the smilar quality as super screen, it needs to be mentioned what they hold as an exception.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 171, Rule ID: SO_AS_TO[1]
Message: Use simply 'to'
Suggestion: to
...ng about the good quality of his movies so as to counter decline in the number of viewer...
^^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 319, Rule ID: HE_THE[1]
Message: Did you mean 'in the argument'?
Suggestion: in the argument
...ve viewers. But there are certain flaws in he argument. I shall suggest ways to strengthen the...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'but', 'first', 'firstly', 'if', 'may', 'second', 'secondly', 'so', 'then', 'thus', 'whereas', 'as to', 'on the contrary']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.235555555556 0.25644967241 92% => OK
Verbs: 0.155555555556 0.15541462614 100% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0977777777778 0.0836205057962 117% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0511111111111 0.0520304965353 98% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0422222222222 0.0272364105082 155% => Less pronouns wanted. Try not to use 'you, I, they, he...' as the subject of a sentence
Prepositions: 0.144444444444 0.125424944231 115% => OK
Participles: 0.0533333333333 0.0416121511921 128% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.56230138147 2.79052419416 92% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0177777777778 0.026700313972 67% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.001811407834 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.113333333333 0.113004496875 100% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0311111111111 0.0255425247493 122% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0155555555556 0.0127820249294 122% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2455.0 2731.13054187 90% => OK
No of words: 421.0 446.07635468 94% => OK
Chars per words: 5.83135391924 6.12365571057 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.52971130743 4.57801047555 99% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.334916864608 0.378187486979 89% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.24703087886 0.287650121315 86% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.166270783848 0.208842608468 80% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.111638954869 0.135150697306 83% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.56230138147 2.79052419416 92% => OK
Unique words: 166.0 207.018472906 80% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.394299287411 0.469332199767 84% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
Word variations: 42.1837292814 52.1807786196 81% => OK
How many sentences: 16.0 20.039408867 80% => OK
Sentence length: 26.3125 23.2022227129 113% => OK
Sentence length SD: 71.8031162276 57.7814097925 124% => OK
Chars per sentence: 153.4375 141.986410481 108% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.3125 23.2022227129 113% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.875 0.724660767414 121% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 3.58251231527 56% => OK
Readability: 51.015587886 51.9672348444 98% => OK
Elegance: 1.74107142857 1.8405768891 95% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.453206594232 0.441005458295 103% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.138153910351 0.135418324435 102% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.101404943865 0.0829849096947 122% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.603431510778 0.58762219726 103% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.175814371584 0.147661913831 119% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.203905729543 0.193483328276 105% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0967670291091 0.0970749176394 100% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.438919369139 0.42659136922 103% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0297423853306 0.0774707102158 38% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.327360127072 0.312017818177 105% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0339850074297 0.0698173142475 49% => The ideas may be duplicated in paragraphs.
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 8.33743842365 156% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 6.87684729064 44% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.82512315271 0% => More neutral sentences wanted.
Positive topic words: 12.0 6.46551724138 186% => OK
Negative topic words: 0.0 5.36822660099 0% => More negative topic words wanted.
Neutral topic words: 0.0 2.82389162562 0% => More neutral topic words wanted.
Total topic words: 12.0 14.657635468 82% => 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.