"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. Firstly, the argument attributes the paucity of audience to death of reach of advertistments. The arguments also assumes that allocating a greater chunk of the budget for marketing will result in increased turnout.
The argument attributes the paucity of audience to death of reach of advertistments.
This assumption is inherently flawed as the lack of audience can be attributed to myriad factors. Super Screen movies might have released their movies in a time of the year when movies of other popular actors might have released. In that scenario, people might have preferred the movies of their favourite stars instead of Super Screen's movies. The argument has no information about the movies released by Super Screen. Their movies might star a new comer and people might not want to risk their money by watching a new comer's film. The movies might have garnered low ratings among critics and websites such as Rotten Tomatoes and IMDb, which are often lionized by people for making a decision about whether to watch a film .
The assumption might have been strengthened by mentioning about the casts of the movies or the critics' rating of the movies.
The argument assumes that the movies are of good quality after increase in percentage of positive reviews from movie reviewers throughout the year. The term increased is a tad vague as it does not mention about the ratings garnered at the start of the year. The films might have procured egregious ratings at the turn of the year. The increase in ratings might not be substantial so as to turn people's heads and change their perception about the quality of Super Screen's movies. Hence, more analysis must be done into the quality of the movies before arriving at a conclusion.
The argument recommends to allocate a great chunk of the budget for advertising purposes for making people aware about their movies. This recommendation might not be insightful as it fails to consider lot of factors. The budget allocated to advertising might not be fully used for its purpose if the advertising department is rife of venality. Even though the full money is used for marketing, there is no guarantee that those advertistments will be better and reach a large number of people. The advertising commitee might consist of incompetent personnel who might produce egregious advertistments, thereby wasting the money. This recommendation can be strengthened by appointing a proven advertising officials who can understand the interests of the people.
Hence, the argument makes many unwarrented assumptions.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 447, Rule ID: NEW_COMER[1]
Message: Did you mean 'newcomer'?
Suggestion: newcomer
...Super Screen. Their movies might star a new comer and people might not want to risk their...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 724, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Don't put a space before the full stop
Suggestion: .
...a decision about whether to watch a film . The assumption might have been streng...
^^
Line 13, column 1, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
... the critics rating of the movies. The argument assumes that the movies are of...
^^^
Line 13, column 149, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...om movie reviewers throughout the year. The term increased is a tad vague as it doe...
^^^
Line 13, column 259, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...ings garnered at the start of the year. The films might have procured egregious rat...
^^^
Line 13, column 332, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...egious ratings at the turn of the year. The increase in ratings might not be substa...
^^^
Line 13, column 381, Rule ID: SO_AS_TO[1]
Message: Use simply 'to'
Suggestion: to
...ase in ratings might not be substantial so as to turn peoples heads and change their per...
^^^^^^^^
Line 17, column 14, Rule ID: ADMIT_ENJOY_VB[1]
Message: This verb is used with the gerund form: 'recommends allocating'.
Suggestion: recommends allocating
...ving at a conclusion. The argument recommends to allocate a great chunk of the budget for adverti...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 17, column 125, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...oses for making people aware about their movies. This recommendation might not be...
^^
Line 17, column 469, Rule ID: LARGE_NUMBER_OF[1]
Message: Specify a number, remove phrase, or simply use 'many' or 'numerous'
Suggestion: many; numerous
...advertistments will be better and reach a large number of people. The advertising commitee might ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, hence, if, so, then, as to, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 19.6327345309 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 19.0 12.9520958084 147% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 11.1786427146 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 8.0 13.6137724551 59% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 17.0 28.8173652695 59% => OK
Preposition: 60.0 55.5748502994 108% => OK
Nominalization: 18.0 16.3942115768 110% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2201.0 2260.96107784 97% => OK
No of words: 422.0 441.139720559 96% => OK
Chars per words: 5.21563981043 5.12650576532 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.53239876712 4.56307096286 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.86190693771 2.78398813304 103% => OK
Unique words: 195.0 204.123752495 96% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.462085308057 0.468620217663 99% => OK
syllable_count: 669.6 705.55239521 95% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 15.0 8.76447105788 171% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.22255489022 24% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 19.7664670659 116% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 22.8473053892 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 33.0173237452 57.8364921388 57% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 95.6956521739 119.503703932 80% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.347826087 23.324526521 79% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.69565217391 5.70786347227 47% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 7.0 5.15768463074 136% => Less paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 10.0 5.25449101796 190% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 8.20758483034 146% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => OK
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: 0.206639042464 0.218282227539 95% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0664106573326 0.0743258471296 89% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0880874205053 0.0701772020484 126% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0813338009486 0.128457276422 63% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0984031931164 0.0628817314937 156% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.3 14.3799401198 86% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 48.3550499002 110% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 12.197005988 84% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.0 12.5979740519 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.12 8.32208582834 98% => OK
difficult_words: 96.0 98.500998004 97% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.0 12.3882235529 57% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.1389221557 83% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Maximum six paragraphs wanted.
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.