"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 author of the above argument suggests that low turn out for movie screening is due to the public's lack of awareness about the quality of the movie. This assumption is based on the fact that the positive reviews increased as compared to the past year. The author relies on some unwarranted questions that, if not substantiated, dramatically reduces the persuasivness of the argument.
So firstly the question is the report was based on what survey? Was the survey conducted keeping in mind the new changes the screen went through? Perhaps the marketing department failed to take into account the fact that the show timings had changed.It might have been the situation that the working class who could only attend evening shows couldnt do so because of the new changed show timings.It could be that the Super Screen had started showing films from different culture and languages and the people living in the locality were not affable to those new languages.
Moreover, what was the increase in the percentage of positive reviews? There is no evidence that the increase in percentage was a substantial one or that the number of positive reviews is a huge one. For instance the percentage increase might be a meager two-three percent equating to ten-twelve people. The marketing department might be twisting the facts and showing us details which would misguide us.
Finally the question that needs to be answered is who are these movie reviewers? What are their credentials and how do we trust their opinion? The prompt above doesn't define their credibility.Maybe the above reviewers are just some new budding journalists yet to establish their name in the industry. Apart from this the author might not take into consideration the fact that the audience is aware of these positive reviews yet choses to not go to Super screen for movies because their facilities are not upto the mark. Perhaps they dont have good food and beverages which people like to enjoy during movies or they have poor airc-onditioning.
Thus due to these unanswered questions, the above argument is ill-founded. However, the argument would've been strengthened if the author had shed some light on the above given points.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 2.5 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: 369 350
No. of Characters: 1806 1500
No. of Different Words: 188 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.383 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.894 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.587 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 123 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 97 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 64 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 38 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.706 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 14.684 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.529 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.296 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.559 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.083 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 251, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: It
... fact that the show timings had changed.It might have been the situation that the ...
^^
Line 3, column 343, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: couldn't
...ass who could only attend evening shows couldnt do so because of the new changed show t...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 397, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: It
...because of the new changed show timings.It could be that the Super Screen had star...
^^
Line 5, column 329, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...-twelve people. The marketing department might be twisting the facts and showing ...
^^
Line 7, column 1, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Finally,
...us details which would misguide us. Finally the question that needs to be answered ...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 161, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...e trust their opinion? The prompt above doesnt define their credibility.Maybe the abov...
^^^^^^
Line 7, column 193, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: Maybe
...t above doesnt define their credibility.Maybe the above reviewers are just some new b...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 534, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
...ies are not upto the mark. Perhaps they dont have good food and beverages which peop...
^^^^
Line 9, column 1, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
...or they have poor airc-onditioning. Thus due to these unanswered questions, the ...
^^^^
Line 9, column 98, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: would've
...t is ill-founded. However, the argument wouldve been strengthened if the author had she...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, first, firstly, however, if, may, moreover, so, then, thus, apart from, for instance
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 23.0 19.6327345309 117% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 12.9520958084 54% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 13.6137724551 103% => OK
Pronoun: 28.0 28.8173652695 97% => OK
Preposition: 43.0 55.5748502994 77% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 16.3942115768 85% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1844.0 2260.96107784 82% => OK
No of words: 364.0 441.139720559 83% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.06593406593 5.12650576532 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.36792674256 4.56307096286 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.72746721449 2.78398813304 98% => OK
Unique words: 192.0 204.123752495 94% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.527472527473 0.468620217663 113% => OK
syllable_count: 562.5 705.55239521 80% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.76447105788 68% => 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: 17.0 19.7664670659 86% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 83.894191063 57.8364921388 145% => OK
Chars per sentence: 108.470588235 119.503703932 91% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.4117647059 23.324526521 92% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.47058823529 5.70786347227 96% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 10.0 5.25449101796 190% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 6.88822355289 44% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.67664670659 107% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.248440262002 0.218282227539 114% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0715216422471 0.0743258471296 96% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0632613110695 0.0701772020484 90% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.115042340472 0.128457276422 90% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0702429147708 0.0628817314937 112% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.2 14.3799401198 92% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 58.62 48.3550499002 121% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 12.197005988 84% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.13 12.5979740519 96% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.37 8.32208582834 101% => OK
difficult_words: 85.0 98.500998004 86% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 12.3882235529 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.9071856287 84% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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.