The author asserts that Super Screen should allocate a larger share of its budget next year to deliver favorable reviews to the public through advertising based on the recent report from their marketing department, however, it may not be the best choice for attracting more people to them. The cited claim relies on several unjustified assumptions, thus, it is necessary to ask critical questions to evaluate the author’s conclusion.
Firstly, the author depends on just the past year’s report of their marketing department, however, it may not be adequate to relate the general pattern of the public. One-year observation is too short time period to deduce people’s opinion from it. For example, the result of fewer viewers might have been caused by other factors such as economic harshness or spread of disease like SARS, MERS, or COVID-19. If there are uncommon situation in past year, the result would be not acceptable for making the decision of allocation the budget. Thus, the question of whether there is long-term report is necessary to justify the author’s recommendation.
Secondly, the author relies on the presumption that if reviews by movie reviewers about specific Super Screen movies reach to the public, it will attract new viewers, however it may not be the case. Some movie reviewers’ opinion may not the same as the public because reviewers just saw ‘specific’ movies not most movies by Super Screen and they may do not have same favor for movies. Thus, it is essential to ask the public for identifying their preference.
Lastly, even if less popularity is caused not by the quality of movies or other factors but by lack of advertisement of reviewers’ review, allocation more budget may not be necessary to allure more people to watch their movies. Given information the author showed, the possibility that there is no attempt to proliferate favorable review remains. If the marketing department change their strategy of advertisement, Super Screen would not need to allocate more budget to that department. Therefore, the author has to present the former strategy made by marketing department and give the reason to increase the budget.
In sum, to accept the author’s suggestion that Super Screen should allocate a greater budget next year to spread reviews of their movies, answers about questions related to the long-term pattern, the public’s preference, and former strategy of marketing departments had to be illuminated.
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 15 15
No. of Words: 396 350
No. of Characters: 2007 1500
No. of Different Words: 183 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.461 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.068 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.642 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 169 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 108 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 74 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 50 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 26.4 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.738 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.8 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.361 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.591 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.072 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 431, Rule ID: THERE_RE_MANY[3]
Message: Possible agreement error. Did you mean 'situations'?
Suggestion: situations
...ERS, or COVID-19. If there are uncommon situation in past year, the result would be not a...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 546, Rule ID: WHETHER[3]
Message: Wordiness: Shorten this phrase to the shortest possible suggestion.
Suggestion: whether; the question whether
...ecision of allocation the budget. Thus, the question of whether there is long-term report is necessary ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, firstly, however, if, lastly, may, second, secondly, so, therefore, thus, as to, for example, 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: 13.0 12.9520958084 100% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 11.1786427146 63% => OK
Relative clauses : 5.0 13.6137724551 37% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 21.0 28.8173652695 73% => OK
Preposition: 54.0 55.5748502994 97% => OK
Nominalization: 18.0 16.3942115768 110% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2079.0 2260.96107784 92% => OK
No of words: 396.0 441.139720559 90% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.25 5.12650576532 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.46091344257 4.56307096286 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.83025161454 2.78398813304 102% => OK
Unique words: 195.0 204.123752495 96% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.492424242424 0.468620217663 105% => OK
syllable_count: 633.6 705.55239521 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: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 19.7664670659 76% => 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: 26.0 22.8473053892 114% => OK
Sentence length SD: 63.9831922374 57.8364921388 111% => OK
Chars per sentence: 138.6 119.503703932 116% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.4 23.324526521 113% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.53333333333 5.70786347227 132% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.88822355289 58% => 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: 0.331664636139 0.218282227539 152% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.110318365786 0.0743258471296 148% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0934763124433 0.0701772020484 133% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.19450554812 0.128457276422 151% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0661458578622 0.0628817314937 105% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.5 14.3799401198 115% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 45.09 48.3550499002 93% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 12.197005988 110% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.47 12.5979740519 107% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.91 8.32208582834 107% => OK
difficult_words: 100.0 98.500998004 102% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 12.3882235529 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 11.1389221557 111% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.