According to recent report from our marketing department, during the past year, fewer people attended Super Screen movies than in any other year. And yet the percentage of positive reviews by movie reviewers about specific Super Screen movie actually increased during the past year. Clearly, content of these reviews are not reaching out the perspective viewers. Thus, the problem lies not with the quality of movie 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 general public through advertising
The argument claims that for the Super Screen-produced movies to be viewed by more number of people, the Super Screen should allocate greater share of its budget to advertising.
Firstly, the argument states that fewer people attended Super Screen-produced movies last year than in any other year. But, the number of movies released during the past year is not mentioned. It's highly possible that last year fewer movies where released when compared to previous years and hence, as a result fewer people went to watch those movies. The ratio of people going to attend per movie should be provided for all the years. If that ratio is less for the past year when compared to the earlier years, then the argument can state that number of people going to watch such movies has decreased keeping the number of movies released constant.
Furthermore, the percentage of positive reviews by movie reviewers has increased. This indicates that the movies which has been released are of good quality and will actually be better praised by those watching it. But, we don't know how much this increase is? If the increase is small it doesn't indicate that the quality has been improved significantly. No significant improvement can make the movie attenders hackneyed of such movies. Had the actual percentage increase in the positive reviews been mentioned in the argument we could have stated that the movies are better than previous years.
Finally, even if we accept that the quality of movies has improved, we don't know what the implications on the quality of movie will be if we allocate the funds used for making the movie to advertising it. The argument must provide how much share of its budget will be required for advertising because, greater share in advertising implies that the share of budget in actually making the movies has to be reduced - possibly resulting in degradation of quality of movie, which can result in actually decrease in the number of people attending it. This will ultimately, oppose what advertising is actually intented to achieve.
The argument lacks sufficient information to answer many specific questions. had that information been provided only then, the argument would have better claims. But, if any one of the question is left unanswered, argument cannot be justified.
Comments
e-rater score 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: 17 15
No. of Words: 382 350
No. of Characters: 1879 1500
No. of Different Words: 160 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.421 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.919 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.58 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 142 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 93 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 74 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 32 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.471 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 12.147 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.765 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.346 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.587 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.14 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
The memo recommends the…
The memo recommends the Super Screen Movie company to allocate more budget to its marketing department to make more profits. To support this claim, the memo presents few points: 1) The number of viewers is less than the previous year but the reviews of the movies are quite impressive. 2) If the movies are advertised, they will receive more attentions from the viewers and 3) If SSM comapny allocates more budget to the marketing department, the company will generate more profit. I do not think none of these points are enough capable of asserting the claim that more allocation of budget will be the ultimate solution to the issue the company is facing for few reasons.
First of all, the report of marketing department about the number of viewers getting shrinked past years could be related to completely different reasons. Perhaps people are now more comfortable with watching movies in online platforms like Netflix than attending in the theaters and the movies produced by the company are not available in online platforms. So, correlating the less number of viewers with their advertising budget is not sound.
Secondly, the report considers that the reviews from the critics reflects the tastes of common viewers. There are a lot of movies out there which are acclaimed by the critics but did not do very well in the market.
Then, the report further assumes that, the viewers are unware of the movies produced by the company, and therefore, more marketing will help to reach them out. But, this assumption is not supported with evidence. What if the viewers do not come to watch the movies because they know about them? What if the viewers do not trust the critic reviews?
Finally, the report assumes that, the marketing team are enough capable of advertising the movies effectively to generate more revenues. And if they are allocated more budget for the advertisement, they will effectively use the budget to attract more viewers.
In sum, the recommendation would be stronger if it can find out that the viewers are unaware of their good movies and if they are aware, they would definetly come and watch those movies. Even if this is true, the company should find out that the advertising team is effective enough to present the movies to the viewers which will generate significant revenues.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 224, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
...r praised by those watching it. But, we dont know how much this increase is? If the ...
^^^^
Line 5, column 261, 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.
...we dont know how much this increase is? If the increase is small it doesnt indicat...
^^
Line 5, column 289, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...ncrease is? If the increase is small it doesnt indicate that the quality has been impr...
^^^^^^
Line 5, column 596, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... movies are better than previous years. Finally, even if we accept that the qual...
^^^^^^
Line 7, column 72, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
... the quality of movies has improved, we dont know what the implications on the quali...
^^^^
Line 9, column 78, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Had
...tion to answer many specific questions. had that information been provided only the...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, but, finally, first, firstly, furthermore, hence, if, then, as to, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 19.6327345309 97% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.9520958084 100% => OK
Conjunction : 2.0 11.1786427146 18% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 16.0 13.6137724551 118% => OK
Pronoun: 28.0 28.8173652695 97% => OK
Preposition: 43.0 55.5748502994 77% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 16.3942115768 79% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1930.0 2260.96107784 85% => OK
No of words: 379.0 441.139720559 86% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.09234828496 5.12650576532 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.41224685777 4.56307096286 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.63159999992 2.78398813304 95% => OK
Unique words: 168.0 204.123752495 82% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.44327176781 0.468620217663 95% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 592.2 705.55239521 84% => 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: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 0.0 4.22255489022 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 19.7664670659 91% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 70.3396521648 57.8364921388 122% => OK
Chars per sentence: 107.222222222 119.503703932 90% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.0555555556 23.324526521 90% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.88888888889 5.70786347227 86% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 5.25449101796 114% => 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: 0.350304860091 0.218282227539 160% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.126390064078 0.0743258471296 170% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.114459321073 0.0701772020484 163% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.184180919209 0.128457276422 143% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.113316344243 0.0628817314937 180% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.1 14.3799401198 91% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 48.3550499002 104% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.197005988 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.24 12.5979740519 97% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.68 8.32208582834 92% => OK
difficult_words: 72.0 98.500998004 73% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 12.3882235529 85% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => 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.