"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 memo says that the the next-year budget of Super Screen should allocate a good amount in advertising because, based on a survey, people are not getting aware of the movies they are making. The author has reahced the conclusion based on the premise that reviews of specific movies were good but they are not reaching the customers. However, the following questions need to be answered for this claim to be reasonable.
First of all, does finding something mean that it actually happened? The author is saying that the marketing department found lesser people than any year attended movies produced by this company. However, no information is given on how this report was prepared. It is possible that the person who prepared this report may have overlooked some crucial factors. For example, how did he/she make the count? Was it based on ticket sales or was it based on head count? In either case, there is always chance of error because there is counting associated with it. Maybe that person did not account for all the ticket sales or maybe he/she did not count a certain portion of people. Also the "fewer people" is not very clear. Fewer than how many? Was it by two or three people? Because, if it is, then it is not severe at all. So, if either of these scenarios are true, then this argument loses its potential value at the very beginning.
Scondly, do specific positive reviews ensure the overall quality of all the movies produced by this company? The author is presuming that just because there are some positive reviews, all movies are actually good. What are the credentials of these reviewers? Is posting a superficial analysis by any movie-watcher would be equivalent to an expert opinion? The author does not provide any information on that. So, there is no way to tell who gave these reviews. But if this is true that the reviewers are not professionals, then the assertion retains little value.
Finally, does not attending the movies mean that the reviews are not reaching people? The author is very keen to presume that these reviews, whatever they are, are not reaching people. It is possible that may be the people are seeing them, but they are not liking the movies based on the teasers. Maybe the storyline is failing to attract them in some way. So, reviews do not always ensure that people will be interested to watch something unless it attempts to give them what they want in the teaser. So, if this holds merit, then the problem is not in the advertising.
In conclusion, based on the reasoning that the author gave, this argument is faulty. The author presented lots of unwarranted asssumptions with no relevant data to adduce them. So, if the author is able to answer these questions, maybe then this memo might carry some actual reasoning.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: ??? out of 6
Category: Poor Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 32 15
No. of Words: 483 350
No. of Characters: 2230 1500
No. of Different Words: 208 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.688 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.617 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.369 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 158 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 102 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 64 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 38 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 15.094 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.156 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.562 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.25 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.417 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.095 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 20, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: the
The memo says that the the next-year budget of Super Screen should...
^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 20, Rule ID: DT_DT[1]
Message: Maybe you need to remove one determiner so that only 'the' or 'the' is left.
Suggestion: the; the
The memo says that the the next-year budget of Super Screen should...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 389, Rule ID: HE_VERB_AGR[1]
Message: The pronoun 'she' must be used with a third-person verb: 'makes'.
Suggestion: makes
...al factors. For example, how did he/she make the count? Was it based on ticket sales...
^^^^
Line 5, column 677, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Also,
... not count a certain portion of people. Also the 'fewer people' is not ver...
^^^^
Line 13, column 19, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[3]
Message: The verb 'does' requires base form of the verb: 'attend'
Suggestion: attend
...s little value. Finally, does not attending the movies mean that the reviews are no...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 13, column 250, Rule ID: PROGRESSIVE_VERBS[1]
Message: This verb is normally not used in the progressive form. Try a simple form instead.
...be the people are seeing them, but they are not liking the movies based on the teasers. Maybe ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, finally, first, however, if, look, may, so, then, for example, in conclusion, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 41.0 19.6327345309 209% => Less to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 12.9520958084 54% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 11.1786427146 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 16.0 13.6137724551 118% => OK
Pronoun: 53.0 28.8173652695 184% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 42.0 55.5748502994 76% => 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: 2326.0 2260.96107784 103% => OK
No of words: 481.0 441.139720559 109% => OK
Chars per words: 4.83575883576 5.12650576532 94% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.68313059816 4.56307096286 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.48862019855 2.78398813304 89% => OK
Unique words: 224.0 204.123752495 110% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.465696465696 0.468620217663 99% => OK
syllable_count: 722.7 705.55239521 102% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 32.0 19.7664670659 162% => OK
Sentence length: 15.0 22.8473053892 66% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 36.2340347386 57.8364921388 63% => OK
Chars per sentence: 72.6875 119.503703932 61% => OK
Words per sentence: 15.03125 23.324526521 64% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.46875 5.70786347227 61% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 5.25449101796 114% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.20758483034 122% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 6.88822355289 160% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 11.0 4.67664670659 235% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.218896609801 0.218282227539 100% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0552674557762 0.0743258471296 74% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0764378891087 0.0701772020484 109% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.125508111103 0.128457276422 98% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0741171573662 0.0628817314937 118% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 8.9 14.3799401198 62% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 64.71 48.3550499002 134% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.0 12.197005988 66% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.2 12.5979740519 81% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.83 8.32208582834 94% => OK
difficult_words: 105.0 98.500998004 107% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 12.3882235529 85% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.0 11.1389221557 72% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.9071856287 67% => The average readability is low. Need to imporve the language.
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.