"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 the 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."
The author has written in the memo that less people have watched Super Screen-produced movies comparing any other year. Morever, percentage of positive reviews from movie reviewers have increased. Hence, the conclusion is made by the author that contents of the reviews are not reaching the people and the problem is with public's oblivian for the movies. Although, the author has pointed out the problems but certain assumptions can be easily produced that will lead to the ambiguity of the conclusion made by the author. The assumptions are presented in the following essay.
Firstly, the author has claimed that less number of people have watched the movie this year. There is no numeric data that can specify how much number of people have not considered watching Super Screen-produced movie? If the number is in thousands comparing to millions of viewers then the reason might be something else, but if, let's consider, ten million people used to watch and only 5 million people attended the movies then it might be a major concern.
Secondly, the author states that the percentage of reviews has mounted comparing to last year. If only 50 thousand positive reviews were given by the movie reviewers from one million viewers, and similar number of of positive reviews were obtained from the two million viewers last year then, the number of positive reviews is same but due to fewer people have watched the movies the percentage has increased. Therefore, it is not necessary that the content of the movies has improved compared to other years.
Thirdly, the author has also suggested as a conclusion that Super Screen should allocate greater share of its budget the following year to reach the maximum population through advertising. But what is the guarantee that after increasing the advertising budget more people will attend the movies? How much increase in the budget will reciprocate the number of people? There is no elucidation that can be subjectified from the concluding statement.
Lastly, in my consideration, if author has been little bit cognizant related to the numeric data and information then the conclusion could have been derived from the analytical comparison of the data, but due to dearth of this, only assumptions can be made.
Comments
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: 16 15
No. of Words: 370 350
No. of Characters: 1850 1500
No. of Different Words: 162 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.386 4.7
Average Word Length: 5 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.624 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 143 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 102 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 66 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 44 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 23.125 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 12.825 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.625 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.372 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.581 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.096 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 41, Rule ID: FEWER_LESS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'fewer'? The noun people is countable.
Suggestion: fewer
...The author has written in the memo that less people have watched Super Screen-produc...
^^^^
Line 5, column 212, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: of
...one million viewers, and similar number of of positive reviews were obtained from the...
^^^^^
Line 9, column 49, Rule ID: LITTLE_BIT[1]
Message: Reduce redundancy by using 'little' or 'bit'.
Suggestion: little; bit
...in my consideration, if author has been little bit cognizant related to the numeric data a...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, hence, if, lastly, second, secondly, so, then, therefore, third, thirdly
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 19.6327345309 97% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.9520958084 85% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 13.6137724551 73% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 16.0 28.8173652695 56% => OK
Preposition: 41.0 55.5748502994 74% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 16.3942115768 30% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1896.0 2260.96107784 84% => OK
No of words: 370.0 441.139720559 84% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.12432432432 5.12650576532 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.38581623665 4.56307096286 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.6810483869 2.78398813304 96% => OK
Unique words: 171.0 204.123752495 84% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.462162162162 0.468620217663 99% => OK
syllable_count: 580.5 705.55239521 82% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 4.96107784431 20% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.67365269461 239% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 1.0 4.22255489022 24% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 19.7664670659 81% => 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: 23.0 22.8473053892 101% => OK
Sentence length SD: 72.9904745498 57.8364921388 126% => OK
Chars per sentence: 118.5 119.503703932 99% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.125 23.324526521 99% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.1875 5.70786347227 108% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.20758483034 122% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.88822355289 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.67664670659 43% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.322845918991 0.218282227539 148% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.120121493527 0.0743258471296 162% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.102531482298 0.0701772020484 146% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.181372359668 0.128457276422 141% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.106777698942 0.0628817314937 170% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.3 14.3799401198 99% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 48.13 48.3550499002 100% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.197005988 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.71 12.5979740519 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.23 8.32208582834 99% => OK
difficult_words: 81.0 98.500998004 82% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 12.3882235529 61% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.1389221557 101% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => 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.