The following is taken from a memo from the advertising director of a 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 increases 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."
In this memo, the author has concluded that Super Screen allocate a greater share of it's budget for reaching to public through advertising. To justify this conclusion, the author notes that fewer people have attended Super Screen-produced movies. As further support, the author also points out that the contents of these revies are not reaching enough of the viewers. Finally the author cites that the reason behind all this is public's lack of awareness. However careful scrutiny of the evidence reveals that it provides little credible support for the author's conclusion.
First of all, I would like to point out that the authors states that according to the reports of their marketing department fewer people have attended Super Screen- produced movies. But the author fails to provide adequate figures to support the conclusion. On what basis did they conclude fewer people have attended? What were the previous year's figures? How many people have they surveyed? What were the survey results? Without answering all these questions, we cannot reach a proper conclusion.
Furthermore, the author has stated that the contents of the positive reviews are not reaching the viewers. He reached this conclusion based on the assumption that the percentage of reviews about Super Screen movies has increased even though fewer people attended. But the author has not given any numbers as to What were the previous year's reviews number? and What were this year's numbers? Also, What could be the other reason except content not reaching people?What was the percentage increase? It can be that the number of people surveyed before was more and if the number of positive reviews are same both years then we cannot say the number of positive reviews has increased. Thus proper analysis of the reason must be shown.
To add to this, the author also states that there is lack of awareness among people that movies of good quality are available. It might be that people are aware about it, but they don't find the Super Screen movies to be of good quality. Also, if they like other production house's movies which are of better quality than Super Screen produced movies then people might not go for this house's movies. Thus by even increasing the budget it might not be of any use.
In conclusion, the author's conclusion that Super Screen should allocate greater share of budget for advertising is unpersuasive as it stands. To bolster it, the memo's author must provide more concrete evidence by providing the answers of the above questions. The author ahould also demonstrate the survey results to get more clarity of the issue. Finally, to better evaluate the argument, we would need more information about reasons of people not attending Super Screen-produced movies.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 369, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Finally,
...are not reaching enough of the viewers. Finally the author cites that the reason behind...
^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 554, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...rovides little credible support for the authors conclusion. First of all, I would li...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 357, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: And
...were the previous years reviews number? and What were this years numbers? Also, Wha...
^^^
Line 5, column 376, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'years'' or 'year's'?
Suggestion: years'; year's
...ears reviews number? and What were this years numbers? Also, What could be the other ...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 463, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: What
...ason except content not reaching people?What was the percentage increase? It can be...
^^^^
Line 5, column 682, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
...mber of positive reviews has increased. Thus proper analysis of the reason must be s...
^^^^
Line 7, column 181, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
...hat people are aware about it, but they dont find the Super Screen movies to be of g...
^^^^
Line 7, column 379, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'these'?
Suggestion: these
...ced movies then people might not go for this houses movies. Thus by even increasing ...
^^^^
Line 7, column 399, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
...le might not go for this houses movies. Thus by even increasing the budget it might ...
^^^^
Line 9, column 20, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...ot be of any use. In conclusion, the authors conclusion that Super Screen should all...
^^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'but', 'finally', 'first', 'furthermore', 'however', 'if', 'so', 'then', 'thus', 'as to', 'in conclusion', 'first of all']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.254509018036 0.25644967241 99% => OK
Verbs: 0.178356713427 0.15541462614 115% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0701402805611 0.0836205057962 84% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0541082164329 0.0520304965353 104% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0360721442886 0.0272364105082 132% => Less pronouns wanted. Try not to use 'you, I, they, he...' as the subject of a sentence
Prepositions: 0.124248496994 0.125424944231 99% => OK
Participles: 0.0420841683367 0.0416121511921 101% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.48187749257 2.79052419416 89% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0260521042084 0.026700313972 98% => OK
Particles: 0.00400801603206 0.001811407834 221% => OK
Determiners: 0.110220440882 0.113004496875 98% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0240480961924 0.0255425247493 94% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0180360721443 0.0127820249294 141% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2766.0 2731.13054187 101% => OK
No of words: 454.0 446.07635468 102% => OK
Chars per words: 6.09251101322 6.12365571057 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.61598047577 4.57801047555 101% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.403083700441 0.378187486979 107% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.259911894273 0.287650121315 90% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.167400881057 0.208842608468 80% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.0881057268722 0.135150697306 65% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.48187749257 2.79052419416 89% => OK
Unique words: 201.0 207.018472906 97% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.442731277533 0.469332199767 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
Word variations: 48.9347764856 52.1807786196 94% => OK
How many sentences: 27.0 20.039408867 135% => OK
Sentence length: 16.8148148148 23.2022227129 72% => OK
Sentence length SD: 43.9165251323 57.7814097925 76% => OK
Chars per sentence: 102.444444444 141.986410481 72% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.8148148148 23.2022227129 72% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.481481481481 0.724660767414 66% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 10.0 3.58251231527 279% => Correct essay format wanted or double check grammar & spelling issues after essay writing.
Readability: 42.8060042421 51.9672348444 82% => OK
Elegance: 1.5671641791 1.8405768891 85% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.382535911871 0.441005458295 87% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.123167912479 0.135418324435 91% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0967162545845 0.0829849096947 117% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.522845225118 0.58762219726 89% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.145665513958 0.147661913831 99% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.151515489259 0.193483328276 78% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0776469303572 0.0970749176394 80% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.410232835423 0.42659136922 96% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0376108055641 0.0774707102158 49% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.283835389041 0.312017818177 91% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0311795540498 0.0698173142475 45% => The ideas may be duplicated in paragraphs.
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 15.0 8.33743842365 180% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.87684729064 58% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.82512315271 166% => OK
Positive topic words: 15.0 6.46551724138 232% => OK
Negative topic words: 3.0 5.36822660099 56% => OK
Neutral topic words: 6.0 2.82389162562 212% => 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.