"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.
In the preceding statement, the author claims that in the past year only a handful of people attended the Super-screen produced movie as reported by marketing department. But the positive review provided by the reviewers were increased during the past years. Author also claims that the good reviews are not reaching their viewers. The issue is not with the quality of the movie but the lack of awarness of the people that there are good quality of movies available in the market. Author also convey that super screen should also increase their budget for promotions. Though his claim may well have merit, author presents a poorly reasoned argument and based solely on the evidence, we cannot accept his argument valid.
The primary issue with the author's reasoning lies in his unsubstantiated premises. Author conveyed that fewer people attended the super-screen compare to previous year but on the other hand the reviews were good and positive but we are not clear that on which movie the critics gave their review. Author just mentioned that review were given on "specific super screen movie". It can be assumed that the critics reviewed different movies and the people attended different. The movie which the people watched was not up to the point and yet the critics does't reviewed it till now.
It was also not cleared that what age group is watching which genre of movie. for example middle age or old people would not like to watch marvel movie or the young generation will not be happy to watch classic movies.
While the author does not have several key issues in his argument's premises and assumptions, that is not to say that the whole argument is without base. Author should mention the name of the movies which got good and potential reviews and should also describe the name of the movie in which fewer audience were scene. This will give enough clarity to the argument. Though there are several issue with the author's reasoning at present, with research and clarifications, he could improve his argument significantly.
In sum, the author's illogical argument is based in the unsupported premises and unsubstantiated assumptions that render his conclusion invalid. The author need to give more clarity of the movie name, what type of audience are watching the movie, what is the genre of that movie etc. If the author truly wants to change the readers mind on the issue, he would have to largely restructure his argument.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 79, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
...group is watching which genre of movie. for example middle age or old people would ...
Line 7, column 383, Rule ID: MANY_NN
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun issue seems to be countable; consider using: 'several issues'.
Suggestion: several issues
...arity to the argument. Though there are several issue with the authors reasoning at present, ...
Line 8, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
...ld improve his argument significantly. In sum, the authors illogical argument i...
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, if, may, so, well, while, for example, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 19.6327345309 97% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.9520958084 93% => OK
Conjunction : 16.0 11.1786427146 143% => OK
Relative clauses : 18.0 13.6137724551 132% => OK
Pronoun: 31.0 28.8173652695 108% => OK
Preposition: 47.0 55.5748502994 85% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 16.3942115768 85% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2048.0 2260.96107784 91% => OK
No of words: 411.0 441.139720559 93% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.98296836983 5.12650576532 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.50256981431 4.56307096286 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.53045339666 2.78398813304 91% => OK
Unique words: 191.0 204.123752495 94% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.464720194647 0.468620217663 99% => OK
syllable_count: 625.5 705.55239521 89% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.76447105788 68% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 19.7664670659 101% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 40.6426807679 57.8364921388 70% => OK
Chars per sentence: 102.4 119.503703932 86% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.55 23.324526521 88% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.35 5.70786347227 59% => 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 : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => OK
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: 0.174638580283 0.218282227539 80% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0643868028425 0.0743258471296 87% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0805390561457 0.0701772020484 115% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.100882790595 0.128457276422 79% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0736083145848 0.0628817314937 117% => OK
automated_readability_index: 12.3 14.3799401198 86% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 59.64 48.3550499002 123% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 12.197005988 81% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.6 12.5979740519 92% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.78 8.32208582834 93% => OK
difficult_words: 82.0 98.500998004 83% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 12.3882235529 61% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.9071856287 84% => OK
What are above readability scores?
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 8 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 5 2
No. of Sentences: 18 15
No. of Words: 412 350
No. of Characters: 1995 1500
No. of Different Words: 186 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.505 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.842 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.415 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 140 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 94 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 66 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 28 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.889 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.801 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.556 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.348 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.546 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.122 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5