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 author concludes that Super Screen should allocate a greater share of its budget next year to reaching the public through advertising. However, the author's assertion may seem unpersuasive because it relies on several questionable assumptions.
To start with, the author assumes that fewer people attended Super Screen-produced movies thatn any other year, but people still like and likely to see Super Screen movie because perccentage of positive reviews are increased, but this may not be the case. This is because only specific movies gets positive reviews, which cannot represent that general movies got the great evaluation. Also, the percent increase of the review might not exactly mean quantity increase of good movies. Which means that even the percent of th ereviews are increased, total number of good movies might decreased, and people are not coming to see movies because of this. Therefore, further question about exact number of positively review movies are increased or not is necessary.
On the top of that, it is assumed that the contents of these reviews are not reaching enough to perspective viewers might be the problem, however, this may also be flawed. Instead, there could be other reasons of less customers such as, positively reviewed movies have good quality but not that interesting for general people or they just now used to watch movies at their home by the internet. Also if, facilities to access to the Super Screen movies are not well developed, that also could be the problem for people to watch the Super Screen movies. Thus, questions about other consumption of movies thesedays or facilities should be required to verify the author's assumption is correct or not.
In conclusion, the author makes questionable assumption that is crutial to support the conclusion. Therefore, further questions about real number of positively reviewed movies, other platform to assess the movie thesedays, and facillities should be ask to verify the author's assertion.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 13 15
No. of Words: 318 350
No. of Characters: 1640 1500
No. of Different Words: 159 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.223 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.157 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.575 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 134 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 89 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 59 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 38 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 24.462 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.67 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.769 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.39 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.606 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.114 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 153, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...ublic through advertising. However, the authors assertion may seem unpersuasive because...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 214, Rule ID: FEWER_LESS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'fewer'? The noun customers is countable.
Suggestion: fewer
...nstead, there could be other reasons of less customers such as, positively reviewed ...
^^^^
Line 5, column 396, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Also,
...h movies at their home by the internet. Also if, facilities to access to the Super S...
^^^^
Line 5, column 660, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...lities should be required to verify the authors assumption is correct or not. In con...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 250, Rule ID: SHOULD_BE_DO[1]
Message: Did you mean 'asked'?
Suggestion: asked
...ie thesedays, and facillities should be ask to verify the authors assertion.
^^^
Line 7, column 268, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...facillities should be ask to verify the authors assertion.
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, however, if, may, so, still, therefore, thus, well, in conclusion, such as, to start with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 19.6327345309 92% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.9520958084 93% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 19.0 28.8173652695 66% => OK
Preposition: 37.0 55.5748502994 67% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 16.3942115768 43% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1683.0 2260.96107784 74% => OK
No of words: 318.0 441.139720559 72% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.29245283019 5.12650576532 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.22286093782 4.56307096286 93% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.65664464484 2.78398813304 95% => OK
Unique words: 165.0 204.123752495 81% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.518867924528 0.468620217663 111% => OK
syllable_count: 515.7 705.55239521 73% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 5.0 8.76447105788 57% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.70958083832 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 4.0 1.67365269461 239% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 19.7664670659 66% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 24.0 22.8473053892 105% => OK
Sentence length SD: 46.2950404388 57.8364921388 80% => OK
Chars per sentence: 129.461538462 119.503703932 108% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.4615384615 23.324526521 105% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.69230769231 5.70786347227 135% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 6.0 5.25449101796 114% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.20758483034 122% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 6.88822355289 29% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.67664670659 21% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.192809900418 0.218282227539 88% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.074014547668 0.0743258471296 100% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0828697727987 0.0701772020484 118% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.110090036241 0.128457276422 86% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0663548809665 0.0628817314937 106% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.7 14.3799401198 109% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 47.12 48.3550499002 97% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 12.197005988 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.7 12.5979740519 109% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.45 8.32208582834 102% => OK
difficult_words: 73.0 98.500998004 74% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.1389221557 104% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.