he argument balmes insufficient and ineffective marketing to be the culprit in explaining why less people viewed the company’s movies during the past year.
The argument balmes insufficient and ineffective marketing to be the culprit in explaining why less people viewed the company’s movies during the past year. This argument is found to be flawed in various ways, among which three stand out the most.
First, none of the statements have been precisely quantified to help the readers gauge the severity of the problem. When we say fewer people went to the movies, do we mean two or two hunderd less people? And what was the number of movie goers the year before as a benchmark? The same argument goes for the positive movie reviews; how many positive reviews did the company receive the year before and what was the percentage increase thereafter? Are we talking about a 10% increase from 10 positive reviews or 100 positive reviews? Likewise, the argument goes onto concluding that more budget needs to be allocated for advertising next year. How much more is this budget is going to be in monetary sense? Is it sufficient and material enough to bring about a substantial change in the trend observed? The argument would have been more convincing if more granular data was provided in order to put the assertions made in some sensible perspective.
Second, the argument assumes that the positive reviews were genuine and does not provide any evidence as to where these positive reviews came from. Today, one can find many fake reviews on the internet, both positive and negative. Many companies actually pay reviewers to provide a satisfactory or unsatisfactory feedback on some product driven by specific motives and agenda. Therefore, the argument cannot simply make conclusions without verifying the authenticity of the reviews. The argument would have been more convincing had it provided some data regarding the profile and background of the movie reviewers.
Last but not least, the argument assumes inadequate marketing efforts to be the only driver for the decline in the turnout. While there well may be a correlation, the causal effect is under question unless satisfactory evidence is provided. One can count many other potential reasons why less people went to movies. For example, it is possible to assume that competitors outperformed Super Screen Production Company during the past year by producing bombastic movies while Super Screen Production Company continued to produce movies ignoring the effect of competition. Another possible reason is the state of economy; many of those movie goers might have lost their jobs during the year hence deciding to pare down on their entertainment budgets by not going to the theaters. One other reason could be a new trend in the movie production introduced during the past year driving people toward watching a different genre than what they used to. Therefore, there are many reasons one can think of in justifying why less people went to movies during the past year. The argument would have been strengthened had it provided an array of surveys and studies examining all such effects in understanding the root cause for the decline in the number of movie goers.
In summary, the argument was found to be fallacious in three primary accounts hence failing to provide convincing evidence in supporting its conclusion of allocating more budget to advertising for the upcoming year.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 96, Rule ID: FEWER_LESS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'fewer'? The noun people is countable.
Suggestion: fewer
...ing to be the culprit in explaining why less people viewed the company's movies...
^^^^
Line 1, column 234, Rule ID: CD_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun 'stand' seems to be countable, so consider using: 'stands'.
Suggestion: stands
...awed in various ways, among which three stand out the most. First, none of the sta...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 192, Rule ID: FEWER_LESS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'fewer'? The noun people is countable.
Suggestion: fewer
...e movies, do we mean two or two hunderd less people? And what was the number of movi...
^^^^
Line 7, column 289, Rule ID: FEWER_LESS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'fewer'? The noun people is countable.
Suggestion: fewer
... count many other potential reasons why less people went to movies. For example, it ...
^^^^
Line 7, column 1013, Rule ID: FEWER_LESS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'fewer'? The noun people is countable.
Suggestion: fewer
...sons one can think of in justifying why less people went to movies during the past y...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, but, first, hence, if, likewise, may, regarding, second, so, then, therefore, well, while, as to, for example, in summary, talking about
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 27.0 19.6327345309 138% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.9520958084 77% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 11.1786427146 116% => OK
Relative clauses : 6.0 13.6137724551 44% => OK
Pronoun: 18.0 28.8173652695 62% => OK
Preposition: 76.0 55.5748502994 137% => OK
Nominalization: 21.0 16.3942115768 128% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2766.0 2260.96107784 122% => OK
No of words: 538.0 441.139720559 122% => OK
Chars per words: 5.14126394052 5.12650576532 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.81610080973 4.56307096286 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.70952718543 2.78398813304 97% => OK
Unique words: 267.0 204.123752495 131% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.496282527881 0.468620217663 106% => OK
syllable_count: 876.6 705.55239521 124% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 4.96107784431 40% => OK
Interrogative: 3.0 0.471057884232 637% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 25.0 19.7664670659 126% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 48.3992396634 57.8364921388 84% => OK
Chars per sentence: 110.64 119.503703932 93% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.52 23.324526521 92% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.84 5.70786347227 102% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 5.25449101796 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 8.20758483034 146% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.67664670659 128% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.37325268392 0.218282227539 171% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.106329258783 0.0743258471296 143% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.182021402963 0.0701772020484 259% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.242756993115 0.128457276422 189% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.223575172151 0.0628817314937 356% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.5 14.3799401198 94% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 48.3550499002 104% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.197005988 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.53 12.5979740519 99% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.41 8.32208582834 101% => OK
difficult_words: 127.0 98.500998004 129% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 12.3882235529 65% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.9071856287 67% => The average readability is low. Need to improve the language.
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 Out of 6
---------------------
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.