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.”
Advertising Super Screen movies to make it more apparent on the cause that lack of viewers inspite of percentage of positive movie reviews about a "specific" movie won't make it appealing based on the assumptions provided in the memo and too for the quality of the movie. Several other information needs to be added to bolster these unsubstantiated reasoning in the memo.
Percentage of positive reviews of a specific movie could never a measure or reasoning for increasing the advertising budget. Supposedly there could three reviews turning out of which two could be positive due to the fact that lesser viewers are interested in Super Screen movies and not significant amount of reviewers are interested in reviewing Super Screen movies. And all in all it does claims about a specific Super Screen movie which makes the reasoning further to fail if Super Screen movies makes several hundereds of movies in which all the other movies it made is of significantly bad qaulity which would be of no use even if the advertising for Super Screen movies are increased. Has the argument reasoned out the process for picking the specific Super Screen movies as basis of evidence of the quality not being the reason it would support the claim.
Super Screen movies would be producing movies of specific genre or with a certain quality which would attract only certain viewers and this would an another reason that their movies are not attracting more viewers as Super Screen movies company ought to be. Have Super Screen movie production company have included questionnarie about the quality of movies to its viewers, which could provide more information about their quality of movies or specific actions further required by Super Screen movies to make any ammendments in their own production.
Contents of any movie reviewer can act as yardstick for lavity if the reputation of movie or movie production company is not yet established. Apparently movie reviewers are package with their own set of interests and even if these contents are marketed to levity still this would be questionable to safetly assume that there would be increase in viewers, even in the utopian world. Least viewers who have watched the movies by Super Screen movie production company would be the further agent to analyze any such deficinies in Super Screen movies quality. Not everyone appreciates Matrix in the first screening, as some needs a shrewd insight to glue the pieces together which might be lacking with expert movie reviews and producers who are behind thousands of screen times. There needs further introspection about the quality from viewers rather than reviewers.
Has Super Screen movies expounded any information as presented in the passage for their reasoning, it would be a rational process for increasing the advertising budget for attracting more viewers, failure of this make this argument less persuvasive for any further action.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 146, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'an' instead of 'a' if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g. 'an article', 'an hour'
Suggestion: an
...centage of positive movie reviews about a 'specific' movie wont make it...
^
Line 5, column 147, Rule ID: AN_ANOTHER[1]
Message: One of these determiners is redundant in this context. Choose only one: 'a reason' or 'another reason'.
Suggestion: a reason; another reason
...act only certain viewers and this would an another reason that their movies are not attracting mo...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 383, Rule ID: THE_SUPERLATIVE[3]
Message: A determiner is probably missing here: ' the Least'.
Suggestion: The Least
... in viewers, even in the utopian world. Least viewers who have watched the movies by ...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
apparently, first, if, so, still
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.6327345309 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 16.0 12.9520958084 124% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 11.1786427146 98% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 13.6137724551 95% => OK
Pronoun: 22.0 28.8173652695 76% => OK
Preposition: 61.0 55.5748502994 110% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 16.3942115768 73% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2470.0 2260.96107784 109% => OK
No of words: 477.0 441.139720559 108% => OK
Chars per words: 5.17819706499 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.67336384929 4.56307096286 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.71326777328 2.78398813304 97% => OK
Unique words: 193.0 204.123752495 95% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.404612159329 0.468620217663 86% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 774.0 705.55239521 110% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 4.96107784431 20% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.471057884232 0% => OK
Article: 0.0 8.76447105788 0% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 0.0 4.22255489022 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 19.7664670659 71% => OK
Sentence length: 34.0 22.8473053892 149% => OK
Sentence length SD: 72.8846236688 57.8364921388 126% => OK
Chars per sentence: 176.428571429 119.503703932 148% => OK
Words per sentence: 34.0714285714 23.324526521 146% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.28571428571 5.70786347227 40% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.20758483034 134% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 0.0 6.88822355289 0% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.67664670659 64% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.305751763284 0.218282227539 140% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.136057123551 0.0743258471296 183% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0714005494541 0.0701772020484 102% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.198128414193 0.128457276422 154% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0596636099149 0.0628817314937 95% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 20.0 14.3799401198 139% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 36.97 48.3550499002 76% => It means the essay is relatively harder to read.
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 16.6 12.197005988 136% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.36 12.5979740519 106% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.63 8.32208582834 104% => OK
difficult_words: 100.0 98.500998004 102% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 12.3882235529 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 15.6 11.1389221557 140% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => The average readability is low. Need to imporve the language.
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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: 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.