According to a recent report by 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 last year. Clearly, the content of these reviews is not reaching enough of our prospective viewers. Thus, the problem lies not in the quality of our movies but with public's lack of awareness that movies of good quality are available. Super Screen should therefore allocate a greater quantity of its budget next year to reaching the public through advertising.
The author's argument of deciding to assign the blame of a decrease in movie attendance to the lack of advertisement, as opposed to movie quality seems plausible at first. Once its properly analyzed, there are many questions that arise due to the lack of evidence and logical thoughts related by the author. Ultimately, the argument is flawed and unsound.
Initially, the author decides to negate the idea of bad movie quality as the cause for the decrease in attendance, due to the increase in positive reviews by movie reviewers. The author seems to fully believe reviewers can dictate general public interest in movies. We live in the age of the internet and social media. Everyone has an opinion and is a defacto movie reviewer. Personally, movie reviews do no factor in my decision when I pick what movie to watch. I don't know of anyone who follows movie reviewers recommendations and acts upon them. If anything, a counter argument would be that many people make their decision based on movie trailers. Perhaps, the quality of those trailers has decreased and ultimately has led to the base issue the author is trying to solve.
Furthermore, the author makes an assertion that because movie reviews improved, therefore the issue is not the movie quality, but the contents of those reviews are not reaching potential viewers. There seems to be a lack of critical thinking as there may be other factors affecting the outcome. Possibly, the quality of the movie theaters has declined, making customers less likely to attend. Another reason could be that movie theaters have become too expensive, and customers choose to wait until the movie is released digitally. Needless to say, more data has to be provided to explicitly assertain this assumption.
Lastly, the author suggests that increasing the advertising budget will lead to an increase in movie viewership. Potentially, this could happen. After all, advertisement is done to promote a message to large numbers of people. However, how do we know this will have the specific impact they want to achieve? Has this been done in the past? Is there data that correlates a specific percent increase in the advertising budget with a clear increase in movie attendance? Those should be follow up questions the director should ask his marketing department. From the description above, it seems they want to throw money in the hope of getting more people to come. It could work, but he won't know how successful he was or if he tackled the real reason behind this issue.
Even though the author suggests that increasing the advertisement budget will lead to an increase in attendance, there are other concerns he seems to not properly analyze. He assumes people listen to movie reviewers. But the reality is that people listen to what they see from their friends on the internet. Others choose based on movie trailers. Perhaps the quality of movie theaters has declined. Or prices have heavily increased. More evidence has to be provided by the marketing department to fully assess the reality of the situation. Until this is done, then the argument the director makes will continue to appear flawed.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 33 15
No. of Words: 528 350
No. of Characters: 2567 1500
No. of Different Words: 251 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.794 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.862 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.553 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 191 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 144 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 101 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 47 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 16 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.05 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.303 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.262 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.416 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.088 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 5, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
The authors argument of deciding to assign the blam...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 232, Rule ID: GENERAL_XX[1]
Message: Use simply 'public'.
Suggestion: public
... to fully believe reviewers can dictate general public interest in movies. We live in the age ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 418, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ersonally, movie reviews do no factor in my decision when I pick what movie to wa...
^^
Line 3, column 467, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
...sion when I pick what movie to watch. I dont know of anyone who follows movie review...
^^^^
Line 7, column 484, Rule ID: SHOULD_BE_DO[1]
Message: Did you mean 'followed'?
Suggestion: followed
...se in movie attendance? Those should be follow up questions the director should ask hi...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, furthermore, however, if, lastly, may, so, then, therefore, after all, as to
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 19.6327345309 107% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.9520958084 93% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 11.1786427146 107% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 13.6137724551 73% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 37.0 28.8173652695 128% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 74.0 55.5748502994 133% => OK
Nominalization: 19.0 16.3942115768 116% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2635.0 2260.96107784 117% => OK
No of words: 526.0 441.139720559 119% => OK
Chars per words: 5.00950570342 5.12650576532 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.78901763229 4.56307096286 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.66749550086 2.78398813304 96% => OK
Unique words: 252.0 204.123752495 123% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.479087452471 0.468620217663 102% => OK
syllable_count: 842.4 705.55239521 119% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 5.0 1.67365269461 299% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 33.0 19.7664670659 167% => OK
Sentence length: 15.0 22.8473053892 66% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 42.6086252946 57.8364921388 74% => OK
Chars per sentence: 79.8484848485 119.503703932 67% => OK
Words per sentence: 15.9393939394 23.324526521 68% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.66666666667 5.70786347227 47% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
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 : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 13.0 4.67664670659 278% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.238656352837 0.218282227539 109% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0633915869076 0.0743258471296 85% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0636467983795 0.0701772020484 91% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.142688851331 0.128457276422 111% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0571732271622 0.0628817314937 91% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.1 14.3799401198 70% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 56.25 48.3550499002 116% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 12.197005988 75% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.48 12.5979740519 91% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.16 8.32208582834 98% => OK
difficult_words: 126.0 98.500998004 128% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.0 11.1389221557 72% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => 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.