"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."
The author concludes that the marketing department needs to allocate a greater share of its budget to reaching the public through advertising so that the number of viewers rises. The conclusion is based on the premise that although the movies do not lack in quality, many prospective viewers are unaware of the availability of good quality movies. The argument, although seems plausible, is based on many unwarranted assumptions made by the author. We discuss the validity of such assumptions below.
First of all, the author assumes that the review is given by the small number of viewers actually portrays the movie's real quality. It might be possible that the reviewers liked the certain aspects and scenes of the movies, that reflected their own life and reviewed the movie as a good one. It might also be possible that the musicians watching the movies loved the songs instead of the movie. The author has not taken these factors into account. We cannot be sure that the large portion of viewers will actually like the movies based on the review of others. It might also be possible that these viewers were forced to give positive reviews by the movie makers because the number of viewers was declining. In such a case, the real quality of the movie is hidden behind the smokescreen of fake reviews.
Similarly, the author assumes that if the public is aware of the availability of good quality movies, the number of viewers will increase. It might be possible that many of them already know about the movie's high quality but did not want to attend the movie because they had no interest in such movies. The movie taste of reviewers and the prospective viewers might not match at all which does not lead to an increase in the number of viewers as assumed by the author. We can see the examples of many blockbuster movies available today which we know about their quality but insist on attending them because we have no interest in their content. The author's assumption clearly fails in such cases.
Likewise, the author assumes that increasing the budget for advertisement will make the quality of the movie known to all. But he does not talk about the kind of advertisement they will be able to prepare. Simply increasing the budget might not be enough to prepare better advertisements and even if the advertisements are good enough, people simply might not be willing to attend the movie just because they do not want to. In such a case, the advertisement clearly fails and the money goes into waste.
In sum, the awareness of the availability of good quality movies might increase the number of viewers if the reviews are not fake and people actually attend the movie after knowing that such movies are available. But, the author has not addressed the possible issues presented above. Thus, the author's argument seems plausible but its validity is skeptical as it is based on many unwarranted assumptions.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 2.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 23 15
No. of Words: 499 350
No. of Characters: 2378 1500
No. of Different Words: 192 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.726 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.766 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.503 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 170 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 120 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 69 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 40 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.696 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.513 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.609 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.343 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.517 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.116 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 349, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...he availability of good quality movies. The argument, although seems plausible, is ...
^^^
Line 5, column 650, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
... have no interest in their content. The authors assumption clearly fails in such cases....
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 295, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...sible issues presented above. Thus, the authors argument seems plausible but its validi...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, first, if, likewise, similarly, so, thus, kind of, such as, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 19.6327345309 107% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.9520958084 108% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 13.6137724551 110% => OK
Pronoun: 36.0 28.8173652695 125% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 65.0 55.5748502994 117% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 16.3942115768 49% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2431.0 2260.96107784 108% => OK
No of words: 499.0 441.139720559 113% => OK
Chars per words: 4.87174348697 5.12650576532 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.72634191566 4.56307096286 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.54414322875 2.78398813304 91% => OK
Unique words: 203.0 204.123752495 99% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.406813627255 0.468620217663 87% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 765.0 705.55239521 108% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 4.96107784431 161% => OK
Article: 15.0 8.76447105788 171% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 19.7664670659 116% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 48.447972601 57.8364921388 84% => OK
Chars per sentence: 105.695652174 119.503703932 88% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.6956521739 23.324526521 93% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.04347826087 5.70786347227 71% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 8.20758483034 158% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.88822355289 73% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.67664670659 107% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.140498862795 0.218282227539 64% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0474143476242 0.0743258471296 64% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.047491483864 0.0701772020484 68% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0917412409147 0.128457276422 71% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0435698751695 0.0628817314937 69% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.4 14.3799401198 86% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 58.62 48.3550499002 121% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 12.197005988 84% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.97 12.5979740519 87% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.46 8.32208582834 90% => OK
difficult_words: 88.0 98.500998004 89% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => 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.