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 Super Screen Company states that the the crowd attendance to their movies has decreased significantly. The company however claims that the movie quality along the years have not been declined which can be confirmed from the fact that positive reviews made by the reviewers have also increased.
However, these so called movie reviewers should be authorized and recognized movie reviewers whose reviews are well accepted among the masses. If the movie reviewers are not so popular among the people, they will tend to ignore such insignificant reviews. Thus, the company needs to specify the authenticity of these reviewers and only then the credibility of their reviews can be judged and the claim will hold true.
Furthermore, the company states that the reviews are not reaching the public and claims that an increase in advertisement budget will help to spread these reviews among the masses to greater extent. Here, the company needs to elaborate more about the mediums used for advertising. Take for instance, the case of TV advertising. It might so happen that the people have reduced the time spent on watching TV because of alternative available streaming options. In such a case, an increase in advertisement budget will not help the company's claim. Thus, the company needs to mention about the media platform used for promoting the movie.
In addition to this, one possible reason might be that the movie pricing which the people have to bear. The company needs to mention the price history along with this claim as cost can play a major role in people not turning up to watch the movies. The people might have found alternative movies with comparable quality content and cheaper price. Because of which, the viewership to Super Screen Co. movies might have decreased.
Examining all the various factors involved with the company's claim, the argument does not suggest a strong reason to increase the advertisement budget. While the proposal does highlight a possibility, more warranted information about the claim is required from the company's part.
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: 17 15
No. of Words: 336 350
No. of Characters: 1697 1500
No. of Different Words: 161 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.281 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.051 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.532 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 120 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 89 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 54 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 38 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 19.765 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.743 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.588 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.356 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.595 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.1 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 38, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: the
The Super Screen Company states that the the crowd attendance to their movies has de...
^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 38, 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 Super Screen Company states that the the crowd attendance to their movies has de...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, furthermore, however, if, so, then, thus, well, while, for instance, in addition
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 19.6327345309 46% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.9520958084 93% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 11.1786427146 45% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 16.0 28.8173652695 56% => OK
Preposition: 37.0 55.5748502994 67% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 16.3942115768 61% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1747.0 2260.96107784 77% => OK
No of words: 336.0 441.139720559 76% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.1994047619 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.28139028586 4.56307096286 94% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.58745659258 2.78398813304 93% => OK
Unique words: 170.0 204.123752495 83% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.505952380952 0.468620217663 108% => OK
syllable_count: 535.5 705.55239521 76% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 12.0 8.76447105788 137% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 19.7664670659 86% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 39.5547012941 57.8364921388 68% => OK
Chars per sentence: 102.764705882 119.503703932 86% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.7647058824 23.324526521 85% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.05882352941 5.70786347227 89% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => 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: 5.0 4.67664670659 107% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.235828698514 0.218282227539 108% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0829225020278 0.0743258471296 112% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0788551236345 0.0701772020484 112% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.142380068504 0.128457276422 111% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0969334198103 0.0628817314937 154% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.9 14.3799401198 90% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 48.3550499002 108% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.197005988 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.88 12.5979740519 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.1 8.32208582834 97% => OK
difficult_words: 75.0 98.500998004 76% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 54.17 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.25 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.