Title: Super Screen Movies
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 advertising director concluded that the advertising budget should be increased next year in order to recover the number of movie viewers, based on the problematic evidence of reports which indicate the reducing number of movie viewers but the increasing number of positive movie reviewers last year. To say that people are unaware of good quality movies due to the insufficient fund of advertising is therefore questionable.
Firstly, it is presented that the number of reviewer in specific movies has increased during last year, in spite of the decreasing number of total movie viewers. The director of advertisement then summarized that this phenomena is caused by the public’s unawareness of good quality films, implying the lack of advertising. However, the growing number of positive reviews in some specific movies does not represent that all the other Super Screen-produced movies are satisfying; their qualities may be so poor that all the posts on internet about them are negative, resulting the lessened number of movie viewers. Therefore, it is questionable that the reducing number of spectators is directly related to the insufficient advertising.
Even though all the movies last year exhibit good qualities, the definition of “enough viewers” is not shown in the memo. The number of it, for instance, the average of positive reviewers in the last decades, should be listed as a comparison so that the readers, which may be the managers of the movie company, can be more convinced. Moreover, the report must clearly show that the positive reviewers are indeed less than the average one, otherwise it would be considered as an attempt to increase the budget by masking the real report and confounding the decision of budget approval.
To sum up, the relation between the reducing number of viewers and the exposure of advertising, and the average number of positive movie reviewers should be indicated, so that the suggestion by the advertising director is more persuasive and reasonable.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Sentence: The director of advertisement then summarized that this phenomena is caused by the public's unawareness of good quality films, implying the lack of advertising.
Description: A determiner/pronoun, singular is not usually followed by a noun, plural, common
Suggestion: Refer to this and phenomena
--------------------
argument 1 -- OK
argument 2 -- not OK
--------------------
flaws:
Need at least three arguments. More content wanted. For issue essays, around 450 words, for argument essays, around 400 words.
Let's analyze the structure of the statement and argue accordingly:
condition 1:
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. //your argument 1
condition 2:
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. //maybe people watch movies by DVD or online
conclusion:
Super Screen should therefore allocate a greater share of its budget next year to reaching the public through advertising. //maybe its budget is already enough...
---------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 1 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 10 15
No. of Words: 321 350
No. of Characters: 1651 1500
No. of Different Words: 148 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.233 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.143 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.831 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 133 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 102 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 75 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 45 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 32.1 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.867 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.9 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.45 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.64 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.068 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 214, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'these'?
Suggestion: these
...r of advertisement then summarized that this phenomena is caused by the public'...
^^^^
Line 3, column 468, Rule ID: PROGRESSIVE_VERBS[1]
Message: This verb is normally not used in the progressive form. Try a simple form instead.
... the other Super Screen-produced movies are satisfying; their qualities may be so poor that al...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['but', 'first', 'firstly', 'however', 'if', 'may', 'moreover', 'so', 'then', 'therefore', 'for instance', 'in spite of', 'to sum up']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.258333333333 0.25644967241 101% => OK
Verbs: 0.141666666667 0.15541462614 91% => OK
Adjectives: 0.1 0.0836205057962 120% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0472222222222 0.0520304965353 91% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0166666666667 0.0272364105082 61% => OK
Prepositions: 0.147222222222 0.125424944231 117% => OK
Participles: 0.0583333333333 0.0416121511921 140% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.99617221988 2.79052419416 107% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0166666666667 0.026700313972 62% => OK
Particles: 0.00277777777778 0.001811407834 153% => OK
Determiners: 0.119444444444 0.113004496875 106% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0222222222222 0.0255425247493 87% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.00555555555556 0.0127820249294 43% => Some subClauses wanted starting by 'Which, Who, What, Whom, Whose.....'
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2028.0 2731.13054187 74% => OK
No of words: 321.0 446.07635468 72% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 6.31775700935 6.12365571057 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.23278547379 4.57801047555 92% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.417445482866 0.378187486979 110% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.320872274143 0.287650121315 112% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.264797507788 0.208842608468 127% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.16199376947 0.135150697306 120% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.99617221988 2.79052419416 107% => OK
Unique words: 156.0 207.018472906 75% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.485981308411 0.469332199767 104% => OK
Word variations: 48.9906867128 52.1807786196 94% => OK
How many sentences: 10.0 20.039408867 50% => More sentences wanted.
Sentence length: 32.1 23.2022227129 138% => OK
Sentence length SD: 66.0984114786 57.7814097925 114% => OK
Chars per sentence: 202.8 141.986410481 143% => OK
Words per sentence: 32.1 23.2022227129 138% => OK
Discourse Markers: 1.3 0.724660767414 179% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.14285714286 78% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 3.58251231527 56% => OK
Readability: 64.1872274143 51.9672348444 124% => OK
Elegance: 2.25675675676 1.8405768891 123% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.342631220435 0.441005458295 78% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.175666990078 0.135418324435 130% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0689490710325 0.0829849096947 83% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.75116381258 0.58762219726 128% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.128746797299 0.147661913831 87% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.203766355928 0.193483328276 105% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0277009083087 0.0970749176394 29% => The sentences are too close to each other.
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.649646610759 0.42659136922 152% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0373087564406 0.0774707102158 48% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.267175374025 0.312017818177 86% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0175233919521 0.0698173142475 25% => The ideas may be duplicated in paragraphs.
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.33743842365 84% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 6.87684729064 44% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.82512315271 0% => More neutral sentences wanted.
Positive topic words: 7.0 6.46551724138 108% => OK
Negative topic words: 3.0 5.36822660099 56% => OK
Neutral topic words: 0.0 2.82389162562 0% => More neutral topic words wanted.
Total topic words: 10.0 14.657635468 68% => 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.