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."
Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the recommendation and the argument on which it is based are reasonable. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the recommendation.
The director of the Super Screen Movie Production Company suggests that in order to attract more viewers’ attention, the company should pour more funds in advertising next year. To bolster his recommendation, the director presents the fact that fewer people attended Super Screen-produced movies and there were more positive critics from movie reviewers. The argument seems to be cogent at first glance, but on close scrutiny, it reveals several logical flaws which are based on precarious assumptions.
To begin with, the director cites a report from the company’s marketing department to indicate there were fewer people attending the company-produced movies. However, the director does not mention any details about the report. It is entirely possible that the report is based on an investigation toward the young generations, which can not represent the overall situation. If this is the case, it will definitely undermine the credibility of such a report. Moreover, even if the report is scientifically organised, fewer people attending Super Screen-produced movies does not mean the movies are less popular. Perhaps, local economy is facing a recession, which discourages people from watching movies in the cinema. Therefore, more detailed information about the report and local economic situation need to be provided in order to validate the movies produced by the company are less popular and thereby more advertising is needed to reverse this trend.
Secondly, the director presents that positive reviews about the movies increased during the past year. However, people nowadays have their own opinions about many things. Such reviews from professional critics(reviewers) may have little impact on people's decisions to watch movies. Moreover, people may depend on their friends or families’ evaluation about the movie to decide whether they will see a movie or not. Thus, unless the director proves that professional reviews are still important in influencing people’s decisions to watch movies, I will not be convinced by the recommendation made by him.
Finally, the director assumes that the problem lies not with the quality of the movies because of the increasing percentage of positive reviews. However, the quality of a movie can be evaluated from many aspects, such as commercial success, reviews from critics, artistic accomplishment, etc. Therefore, more positive reviews are not equal to a better movie. More evidences like the evaluation from artistic counterparts should be provided to justify the movies produced by the company still maintain a high standard, and thereby supporting the recommendation to introduce more advertising instead of improve the quality.
In sum, the assumptions the director makes lend little credible support for his argument. To buttress his recommendation, more details, such as the report and local economy, the effectiveness of the reviews and proof about the movies’ high quality, should be provided.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 417, Rule ID: CLOSE_SCRUTINY[1]
Message: Use simply 'scrutiny'.
Suggestion: scrutiny
...ms to be cogent at first glance, but on close scrutiny, it reveals several logical flaws which...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 220, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...iews from professional critics reviewers may have little impact on people's ...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, however, if, may, moreover, second, secondly, still, therefore, thus, such as, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 19.6327345309 97% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.9520958084 85% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 13.6137724551 66% => OK
Pronoun: 19.0 28.8173652695 66% => OK
Preposition: 58.0 55.5748502994 104% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 16.3942115768 98% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2542.0 2260.96107784 112% => OK
No of words: 457.0 441.139720559 104% => OK
Chars per words: 5.56236323851 5.12650576532 109% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.62358717085 4.56307096286 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.95032101368 2.78398813304 106% => OK
Unique words: 221.0 204.123752495 108% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.483588621444 0.468620217663 103% => OK
syllable_count: 796.5 705.55239521 113% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.471057884232 0% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 19.7664670659 106% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 52.520204513 57.8364921388 91% => OK
Chars per sentence: 121.047619048 119.503703932 101% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.7619047619 23.324526521 93% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.38095238095 5.70786347227 94% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.20758483034 122% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.67664670659 107% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.366915101945 0.218282227539 168% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.11274337212 0.0743258471296 152% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.09574415672 0.0701772020484 136% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.207521310742 0.128457276422 162% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0951237484228 0.0628817314937 151% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.6 14.3799401198 108% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 41.7 48.3550499002 86% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 12.197005988 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.97 12.5979740519 119% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.82 8.32208582834 106% => OK
difficult_words: 120.0 98.500998004 122% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 12.3882235529 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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: 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.