"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 the given memo the advertising director of the super screen movie production company contends that there is a decrease in viewership of their produced movies inspite of good reviews. The purported reason for this could be the lack of awareness among the viewers about the quality of the movie. To solve this problem the amount of the budget of the upcoming films should increase. The argument seems to be coherent at first glance, but upon scrutiny, it is highly flawed and rife with incomplete data and questionable premises.
The most glaring error in the lining of the argument is that, the author did not gave the information about the sample time duration of the survey on which the recent report has been released. It might have been surveyed on 2 or 3 months, or may be weeks. Thus, by analyzing these monthly or weekly report one cannot conclude and give the results of the whole year. There could be various problems that there was a decrease in viewership; the rates of the movie tickets might be too much high, the movie might be released in only few screens, the promotion of the movie may be not up to the mark, the cast of the movie may be not impressive or popular. Thus, ignoring all these facts, the author assumed that the decrease in viewership is due to low budget and less advertising.
Besides, the author said that there were positive reviews about their movies. By merely saying this one cannot rely on his claim, as everyone knows that production houses bribe the critiques to review good for their movies. There could be a possibility that the reviewers the author is talking about are in good relation with him or he just concluding his claim upon 2 or 3 reviewers only. The author should provide the proper data about the claim, newspaper columns, reputed reviewer's blogs. If he can provide all these proofs then one can still belive his claim that he produce good quality movies.
Moreover, the author assumed that inspite the good reviews, the content os not reaching the prospective viewers. The reviewers , that he is considering may not be so popular in the industry. He also assumed that this can be done only by increasing the budget of the future movies and advertise the movie on a great extent . There could be some another solutions to the problem. For example, they can take a popular actor in their upcoming film which reach their film to greater viewers, a popular actor can do wonders for the film as he is followed by millions of people.
Summing up the discussion, it is pretty clear that the author has only considered som part of the problem. He should explore more ways to optimize the solutio so that budget will also not increase and the movie can reach great number of viewers. Till then the argument is highly flawed and thus, demands a proper re-evaluation.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 145, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ere is a decrease in viewership of their produced movies inspite of good reviews....
^^
Line 3, column 82, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[1]
Message: The verb 'did' requires the base form of the verb: 'give'
Suggestion: give
...he argument is that, the author did not gave the information about the sample time d...
^^^^
Line 3, column 224, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...released. It might have been surveyed on 2 or 3 months, or may be weeks. Thus, by...
^^
Line 5, column 494, 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.
...paper columns, reputed reviewers blogs. If he can provide all these proofs then on...
^^
Line 7, column 127, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma, but not before the comma
Suggestion: ,
...g the prospective viewers. The reviewers , that he is considering may not be so po...
^^
Line 7, column 322, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Don't put a space before the full stop
Suggestion: .
...nd advertise the movie on a great extent . There could be some another solutions t...
^^
Line 9, column 27, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...f people. Summing up the discussion, it is pretty clear that the author has o...
^^
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'besides', 'but', 'first', 'if', 'may', 'moreover', 'so', 'still', 'then', 'thus', 'for example', 'talking about']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.231481481481 0.25644967241 90% => OK
Verbs: 0.146296296296 0.15541462614 94% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0759259259259 0.0836205057962 91% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0518518518519 0.0520304965353 100% => OK
Pronouns: 0.037037037037 0.0272364105082 136% => Less pronouns wanted. Try not to use 'you, I, they, he...' as the subject of a sentence
Prepositions: 0.122222222222 0.125424944231 97% => OK
Participles: 0.037037037037 0.0416121511921 89% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.42485597693 2.79052419416 87% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0148148148148 0.026700313972 55% => OK
Particles: 0.00185185185185 0.001811407834 102% => OK
Determiners: 0.135185185185 0.113004496875 120% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0444444444444 0.0255425247493 174% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0037037037037 0.0127820249294 29% => Some subClauses wanted starting by 'Which, Who, What, Whom, Whose.....'
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2830.0 2731.13054187 104% => OK
No of words: 496.0 446.07635468 111% => OK
Chars per words: 5.70564516129 6.12365571057 93% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.71922212354 4.57801047555 103% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.328629032258 0.378187486979 87% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.227822580645 0.287650121315 79% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.151209677419 0.208842608468 72% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.0745967741935 0.135150697306 55% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.42485597693 2.79052419416 87% => OK
Unique words: 233.0 207.018472906 113% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.469758064516 0.469332199767 100% => OK
Word variations: 54.0295572596 52.1807786196 104% => OK
How many sentences: 22.0 20.039408867 110% => OK
Sentence length: 22.5454545455 23.2022227129 97% => OK
Sentence length SD: 52.3301660707 57.7814097925 91% => OK
Chars per sentence: 128.636363636 141.986410481 91% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.5454545455 23.2022227129 97% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.590909090909 0.724660767414 82% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 7.0 3.58251231527 195% => Correct essay format wanted or double check grammar & spelling issues after essay writing.
Readability: 45.32771261 51.9672348444 87% => OK
Elegance: 1.66141732283 1.8405768891 90% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.316726901644 0.441005458295 72% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.111726938269 0.135418324435 83% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0667142050277 0.0829849096947 80% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.570447293248 0.58762219726 97% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.142496030704 0.147661913831 97% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.133033155003 0.193483328276 69% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0655517725265 0.0970749176394 68% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.495264405923 0.42659136922 116% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.107285085954 0.0774707102158 138% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.219844564721 0.312017818177 70% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0488475744054 0.0698173142475 70% => The ideas may be duplicated in paragraphs.
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.33743842365 132% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.87684729064 116% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.82512315271 62% => OK
Positive topic words: 10.0 6.46551724138 155% => OK
Negative topic words: 7.0 5.36822660099 130% => OK
Neutral topic words: 3.0 2.82389162562 106% => OK
Total topic words: 20.0 14.657635468 136% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 Out of 6 -- The score is based on the average performance of 20,000 argument essays. This e-grader is not smart enough to check on arguments.
---------------------
Note: This is not the final score. 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.