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.
According to Super Screen Movie Production Company (SSMPC), there have been a decrease of movie attenders over the past several years. The advertising director released a statement that the company needs to focus on increasing advertisement budgets to increase profits again. Although their assumptions are plausible, not provide enough information to support the recommendation of increasing the advertisement budget.
Over the past years, how much of the viewers decrease? The director states that 'fewer people' and that does not sound that much in numbers. A few could be three to five and that would be unreasonable to increase the budget to gain those few viewers back. The director's choice of word could have been better; they should have said countless or suffered an extreme lost of viewers. The director also needs to disclose exactly how many people have watched each SSMPC movie in a chart or figure so we could have a better understanding of the decrease in viewers The director obviously has a report from the marketing department and therefore, needs to share the data with everyone reading the memo as well. Using vague terms, like few or couple, does not allow the reader to understand to what degree of lost they are expericing.
With fewer people viewing these movies, exactly how many people are review these movies? The memo states there have a been a lost of viewers; perhaps, the negative reviewers have decided not to watch or review any more of their contents? This is a plausible reason as to how their percentage of positive reviews have increased. There is not less people reviewing with negative remarks and only positive reviews are left with a small amount of total reviews. Again, the director needs to provide more background on the specfic numbers of how many reviewers there are along with the counts of positive and negative reviews. The lack of viewers and several positive reviews could possibly be the reason why people don't want to see SSMPC movies.
People are always searching online and basing their purchases on reviews, particularly ones with a great number of them. How exactly are SSMPC advertising their movies? With the internet, many people are aware of all sorts of movies, small and big budget films. It would be naive to say that the public is unaware is not being exposed enough to their movies. What if the lost movie goers lost their trust in the company because their movies are actually poor quality and it's not worth watching? The public can easily obtain information all over the internet or television, especailly when something is good.
The advertising director did not provide enough supporting data and background information as to justify his assumptions. There were too many vague notions and blank holes that left the reader requiring more to agree with his recommendation. The director needs to followup with more information if he wants to approval on increasing his advertising budget.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 342, Rule ID: FEWER_LESS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'fewer'? The noun people is countable.
Suggestion: fewer
...ve reviews have increased. There is not less people reviewing with negative remarks ...
^^^^
Line 5, column 672, Rule ID: MAY_COULD_POSSIBLY[1]
Message: Use simply 'could'.
Suggestion: could
...of viewers and several positive reviews could possibly be the reason why people dont want to s...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 712, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
...could possibly be the reason why people dont want to see SSMPC movies. People ar...
^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['actually', 'also', 'if', 'so', 'therefore', 'well', 'as to']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.244318181818 0.25644967241 95% => OK
Verbs: 0.170454545455 0.15541462614 110% => OK
Adjectives: 0.102272727273 0.0836205057962 122% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0568181818182 0.0520304965353 109% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0340909090909 0.0272364105082 125% => Less pronouns wanted. Try not to use 'you, I, they, he...' as the subject of a sentence
Prepositions: 0.0965909090909 0.125424944231 77% => OK
Participles: 0.0473484848485 0.0416121511921 114% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.61134064296 2.79052419416 94% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0397727272727 0.026700313972 149% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.001811407834 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.104166666667 0.113004496875 92% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0151515151515 0.0255425247493 59% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0208333333333 0.0127820249294 163% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2964.0 2731.13054187 109% => OK
No of words: 489.0 446.07635468 110% => OK
Chars per words: 6.06134969325 6.12365571057 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.70248278971 4.57801047555 103% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.364008179959 0.378187486979 96% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.269938650307 0.287650121315 94% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.177914110429 0.208842608468 85% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.106339468303 0.135150697306 79% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.61134064296 2.79052419416 94% => OK
Unique words: 228.0 207.018472906 110% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.466257668712 0.469332199767 99% => OK
Word variations: 53.2911552116 52.1807786196 102% => OK
How many sentences: 24.0 20.039408867 120% => OK
Sentence length: 20.375 23.2022227129 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 49.6780607736 57.7814097925 86% => OK
Chars per sentence: 123.5 141.986410481 87% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.375 23.2022227129 88% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.291666666667 0.724660767414 40% => More Discourse Markers wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 3.58251231527 84% => OK
Readability: 47.3688650307 51.9672348444 91% => OK
Elegance: 1.48550724638 1.8405768891 81% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.406262821013 0.441005458295 92% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.120764242779 0.135418324435 89% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0639872717707 0.0829849096947 77% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.51994062103 0.58762219726 88% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.111184921553 0.147661913831 75% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.146166551843 0.193483328276 76% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.080419474589 0.0970749176394 83% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.396362490505 0.42659136922 93% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.100681419287 0.0774707102158 130% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.262904491461 0.312017818177 84% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0721670759363 0.0698173142475 103% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.33743842365 132% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.87684729064 116% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.82512315271 104% => OK
Positive topic words: 8.0 6.46551724138 124% => OK
Negative topic words: 5.0 5.36822660099 93% => OK
Neutral topic words: 5.0 2.82389162562 177% => OK
Total topic words: 18.0 14.657635468 123% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.