"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 argument makes many unwarranted assumptions. They assume that the report from the marketing department to be impeccable and t but the marketing report may have surveyed a sample of the population of viewers who attended the movies. Based on the reviews from a small set of audience, they extrapolate to it to the entire population and infer that there is no problem with the quality of the movies they produce but with the lack of public awareness. Hence, they propose to allocate a high budget towards public awareness campaigns.
The first argument is based on the validity of the report from the marketing department. While surveying a set of audience, there is a potential risk of having a high bias while selecting the survey audience. The audience must be selected carefully to maintain a level of fairness so that the survey reports are not apocryphal. Surveys must be conducted a lot of times in different locations and times. That will be beneficial to gain an insight into the quality of films and how people in different regions perceived its content.
The second argument is about the lack of public awareness. It is infelicitous to derive conclusions from a survey that was done on a meagre number of audience. There may be myriad reasons for accounting the reduced audience. The movies may be releasing along with movies of higher popularity. In that scenario, people are inclined to watch other movies. The movies ratings from the critics can also be a contributing factor for the fewer audience. People rely a lot on critics' rating and websites such as Rotten Tomatoes and IMDB before they buy a ticket to ensure that they get their money's worth.
Another argument is the allocation of a high budget for public awareness. There is no mention of the current marketing techniques being practised. In spite of allocating a high budget for marketing, the public turnover is not guaranteed as it depends on myriad factors like other movies releasing at the time of the year, time of the year etc. If the marketing is done effectively and efficiently, there is a possibility of an increase in audience numbers. The strategy of selective marketing can be leveraged to target a stratum of the population based on their interests and devise advertisements to pique their interests. Hence, the recommendation proposed makes many flawed assumptions.
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: 21 15
No. of Words: 395 350
No. of Characters: 1933 1500
No. of Different Words: 188 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.458 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.894 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.761 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 151 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 107 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 81 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 54 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 18.81 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 11.545 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.619 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.282 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.448 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.058 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 9, column 470, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'critics'' or 'critic's'?
Suggestion: critics'; critic's
...he fewer audience. People rely a lot on critics rating and websites such as Rotten Toma...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, hence, if, may, second, so, while, such as, in spite of
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 19.6327345309 112% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 12.9520958084 62% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 13.6137724551 59% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 20.0 28.8173652695 69% => OK
Preposition: 56.0 55.5748502994 101% => OK
Nominalization: 20.0 16.3942115768 122% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1979.0 2260.96107784 88% => OK
No of words: 395.0 441.139720559 90% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.01012658228 5.12650576532 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.45809453852 4.56307096286 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.85315894106 2.78398813304 102% => OK
Unique words: 188.0 204.123752495 92% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.475949367089 0.468620217663 102% => OK
syllable_count: 634.5 705.55239521 90% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 19.7664670659 111% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 22.8473053892 74% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 47.7778087428 57.8364921388 83% => OK
Chars per sentence: 89.9545454545 119.503703932 75% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.9545454545 23.324526521 77% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.31818181818 5.70786347227 58% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 6.88822355289 145% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.67664670659 128% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.148087466064 0.218282227539 68% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0420981626211 0.0743258471296 57% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0451469782168 0.0701772020484 64% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0920851617926 0.128457276422 72% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0255945251812 0.0628817314937 41% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.1 14.3799401198 77% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 54.22 48.3550499002 112% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 12.197005988 81% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.48 12.5979740519 91% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.84 8.32208582834 106% => OK
difficult_words: 109.0 98.500998004 111% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 12.3882235529 93% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 11.1389221557 79% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => 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.