"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 this argument, the director implies that to encourage more people to watch Super Screen-produced movies, the company should allocate more budget in advertising next year. However, the inference is entirely based on logically unconvincing assumptions. Without providing further evidence, the writer's statement itself is unpersuasive and unwarranted.
First of all, the advertising director fails to give the reason why viewers diminished during the past year. He/she jumps to the conclusion that the decrease was due to a lack of public awareness. The real reason for fewer movie-viewers might result from a national economic downturn that people cut their entertainment budget on movies, or it could be attributed to the prospering of video streaming services like Netflix or Disney+. We should find the real reason of the viewer decrease.
Another important issue to be addressed is the content of the movies' positive reviews. The director should examine if the reviews were valid or not since nowadays more and more corporation tries to make their outside image positive by giving their customers some discounts and requiring them to give positive reviews in return. Considering the positive reviews may be an advertisement way, we should do a deeper investigation about how these views think about the movies they've watched.
Finally, I think the writer should tell us the correlation between positive reviews and the number of viewers from the past experiences. Presumably, this movie producer always gets good reviews on all movies they've made all the time, which makes the author's statement about advertising the reviews to the public questionable.
To sum up, the argument lacks credibility to infer that the corporation should spend more on the advertisement to increase the number of movie viewers next year. And I believe the director should offer more cogent evidence regarding issues discussed above to support his/her idea.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 295, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'writers'' or 'writer's'?
Suggestion: writers'; writer's
...Without providing further evidence, the writers statement itself is unpersuasive and un...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 472, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: they've
... how these views think about the movies theyve watched. Finally, I think the writer...
^^^^^^
Line 7, column 120, Rule ID: PAST_EXPERIENCE_MEMORY[1]
Message: Use simply 'experiences'.
Suggestion: experiences
...iews and the number of viewers from the past experiences. Presumably, this movie producer always...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 209, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: they've
... always gets good reviews on all movies theyve made all the time, which makes the auth...
^^^^^^
Line 7, column 251, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...eyve made all the time, which makes the authors statement about advertising the reviews...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, however, if, may, regarding, so, i think, first of all, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 19.6327345309 41% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.9520958084 77% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 11.1786427146 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 5.0 13.6137724551 37% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 22.0 28.8173652695 76% => OK
Preposition: 46.0 55.5748502994 83% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 16.3942115768 85% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1645.0 2260.96107784 73% => OK
No of words: 303.0 441.139720559 69% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.42904290429 5.12650576532 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.17215713816 4.56307096286 91% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.87015265324 2.78398813304 103% => OK
Unique words: 176.0 204.123752495 86% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.580858085809 0.468620217663 124% => OK
syllable_count: 513.9 705.55239521 73% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.70958083832 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 19.7664670659 71% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 55.8562294408 57.8364921388 97% => OK
Chars per sentence: 117.5 119.503703932 98% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.6428571429 23.324526521 93% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.14285714286 5.70786347227 108% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 5.25449101796 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 6.88822355289 29% => 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: 0.243642326317 0.218282227539 112% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0737790236433 0.0743258471296 99% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0631194824762 0.0701772020484 90% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.129134530173 0.128457276422 101% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0527252085677 0.0628817314937 84% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.0 14.3799401198 104% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 41.7 48.3550499002 86% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 12.197005988 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.21 12.5979740519 113% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.16 8.32208582834 110% => OK
difficult_words: 86.0 98.500998004 87% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 12.3882235529 85% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => OK
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.