"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."
In the memo from the advertising director of Super Screen Movie Production Company, it is recommended to increase the budget on the advertising aspect of the company in the following year. The advertising director has based this recommendation on the reason that positive reviews about specific Super Screen Movies increased in last year and has argued that the quality of films are good but have not reached enough people. While on the surface the reasons stated by advertising director seems plausible, it is full of unwarranted assumptions. Three questions must be answered before the recommendation can be fully evaluated.
To begin with, will the positive reviews be same for the next year? It is possible that positive reviews were increased because this year the company produced a good movie while next year year they might not. It may also be the case that next year another production company will produce even better movies than the Super Screen Movie Production Company. If the above cases are true then the argument presented in the memo is significantly hampered.
Secondly, the marketing department should provide the actual number of the people attended. It is possible that the less number of people as stated were only few like 1 or 2 which will make the case of increasing the advertisement budget redundant. It may also be the case that previous year there was international festival going on for a whole year as a result of which less people went to movies after all. So, I would advise the advertising director to conduct a systematic survey about the reason regarding the decrease in the number of people and move forward with the recommendation accordingly.
Thirdly, are people really unaware of the good quality movies? It is possible that the public are aware of the reviews but regard those reviews as biased ones. It is also possible that there are other production company with ever better reviews and movies. If the above cases hold water then the argument presented in the original memo is markedly hindered.
In conclusion, the argument as it stands is considerably flawed because of its reliance on several unstated assumptions. If the author of the passage is able to provide more evidence and answer to the above three questions in a systematic manner then it will be possible to fully evaluate the recommendation of increasing the budget of advertising.
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: 18 15
No. of Words: 397 350
No. of Characters: 1965 1500
No. of Different Words: 182 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.464 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.95 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.729 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 146 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 102 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 73 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 41 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.056 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.753 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.833 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.327 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.561 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.085 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 84, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...f Super Screen Movie Production Company, it is recommended to increase the budget...
^^
Line 5, column 184, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: year
...ompany produced a good movie while next year year they might not. It may also be the case...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 356, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “If” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
... Super Screen Movie Production Company. If the above cases are true then the argum...
^^
Line 9, column 10, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...s significantly hampered. Secondly, the marketing department should provide ...
^^
Line 9, column 374, Rule ID: FEWER_LESS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'fewer'? The noun people is countable.
Suggestion: fewer
...n for a whole year as a result of which less people went to movies after all. So, I ...
^^^^
Line 13, column 258, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “If” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...ny with ever better reviews and movies. If the above cases hold water then the arg...
^^
Line 17, column 224, Rule ID: IN_A_X_MANNER[1]
Message: Consider replacing "in a systematic manner" with adverb for "systematic"; eg, "in a hasty manner" with "hastily".
...and answer to the above three questions in a systematic manner then it will be possible to fully evalu...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
accordingly, also, but, if, may, really, regarding, second, secondly, so, then, third, thirdly, while, after all, in conclusion, as a result, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 24.0 19.6327345309 122% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.9520958084 85% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 11.1786427146 63% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 13.6137724551 73% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 24.0 28.8173652695 83% => OK
Preposition: 49.0 55.5748502994 88% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 16.3942115768 91% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2017.0 2260.96107784 89% => OK
No of words: 397.0 441.139720559 90% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.08060453401 5.12650576532 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.46372701284 4.56307096286 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.78758358369 2.78398813304 100% => OK
Unique words: 182.0 204.123752495 89% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.458438287154 0.468620217663 98% => OK
syllable_count: 647.1 705.55239521 92% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 4.96107784431 181% => OK
Article: 3.0 8.76447105788 34% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 19.7664670659 91% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 50.8087979647 57.8364921388 88% => OK
Chars per sentence: 112.055555556 119.503703932 94% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.0555555556 23.324526521 95% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.61111111111 5.70786347227 151% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 7.0 5.25449101796 133% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 8.20758483034 146% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 6.88822355289 44% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.67664670659 64% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0900073882471 0.218282227539 41% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0315963296995 0.0743258471296 43% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0457669357348 0.0701772020484 65% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0508771185816 0.128457276422 40% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0341784991329 0.0628817314937 54% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.5 14.3799401198 94% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 48.3550499002 102% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.18 12.5979740519 97% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.91 8.32208582834 95% => OK
difficult_words: 80.0 98.500998004 81% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 15.0 12.3882235529 121% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.