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 memo from the advertising director of the Super Screen Movie Production Company, the author concludes that a greater share of Super Screen budget should be allocated to reaching the public through advertising next year. The conclusion is based on the fact that the author believe people are not aware of the qualities that are available. However, there are three questions that needs to be answered and if not supported properly with evidences, significantly weaken the persuasiveness of the argument.
First of all, is the report from the marketing department done systematically? The author assumes, without evidence, that fewer people attended Super Screen produced movies during the past year than any other year according to the report. Perhaps, the report might not be done properly. It is possible that the the marketing department use to focus on some areas that are filled with young people over the years but decide to just visit the neighbouring areas that is filled with old people that are not really interested in the movie. It is also possible that there has been pirates of their movies as people do not neccessary purchase their movies directly but watch the pirated or rcorded ones they got. Or maybe some sites are now showing some of their movies for free which is why the marketing department feel fewer people their movies. If either of this scenarios are true, then authors suggestion is systematically weakened. Secondly, is the awareness of their movies responsible for the decline? The author presume that the fact that reviews are not reaching people is what led to the decrease in the number of people watching it. Perhaps people have found other interesting movie that they prefer to this Super Screen movie. It is possible that the movie repeats the same story line and people are already tired of watchin the same thing over and over again and this led to their decline in attending the movie. It is also possible that they now have competitor that produce a better version of their movie and people love theirs. If this is possible, then the recommendation does not hold water. of
In conclusion, the argument, as it stands now, is considerably flawed due to its reliance on three unwarranted assumption. If the author is able to answer the questions above and provide evidence that can be used to support them, then it is possible to evaluate the viability of the recommendations.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 10 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 6 2
No. of Sentences: 17 15
No. of Words: 407 350
No. of Characters: 1980 1500
No. of Different Words: 190 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.492 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.865 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.583 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 137 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 91 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 66 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 40 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 23.941 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.795 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.529 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.321 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.321 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.087 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 307, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: the
...t be done properly. It is possible that the the marketing department use to focus on so...
^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 307, Rule ID: DT_DT[1]
Message: Maybe you need to remove one determiner so that only 'the' or 'the' is left.
Suggestion: the; the
...t be done properly. It is possible that the the marketing department use to focus on so...
^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 336, Rule ID: USE_TO_VERB[1]
Message: Did you mean 'used'?
Suggestion: used
...sible that the the marketing department use to focus on some areas that are filled ...
^^^
Line 2, column 856, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'these'?
Suggestion: these
...fewer people their movies. If either of this scenarios are true, then authors sugges...
^^^^
Line 2, column 1016, Rule ID: MASS_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Possible agreement error - use third-person verb forms for singular and mass nouns: 'presumes'.
Suggestion: presumes
...responsible for the decline? The author presume that the fact that reviews are not reac...
^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 1608, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Of
...he recommendation does not hold water. of In conclusion, the argument, as it s...
^^
Line 2, column 1610, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... recommendation does not hold water. of In conclusion, the argument, as it stand...
^^^^
Line 3, column 112, Rule ID: CD_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun 'assumption' seems to be countable, so consider using: 'assumptions'.
Suggestion: assumptions
...ue to its reliance on three unwarranted assumption. If the author is able to answer the qu...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, may, really, second, secondly, so, then, in conclusion, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 29.0 19.6327345309 148% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 12.9520958084 23% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 18.0 13.6137724551 132% => OK
Pronoun: 41.0 28.8173652695 142% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 47.0 55.5748502994 85% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 16.3942115768 73% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2016.0 2260.96107784 89% => OK
No of words: 407.0 441.139720559 92% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.95331695332 5.12650576532 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.49157444576 4.56307096286 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.65627079935 2.78398813304 95% => OK
Unique words: 198.0 204.123752495 97% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.486486486486 0.468620217663 104% => OK
syllable_count: 635.4 705.55239521 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: 6.0 8.76447105788 68% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 19.7664670659 91% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 53.9178616274 57.8364921388 93% => OK
Chars per sentence: 112.0 119.503703932 94% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.6111111111 23.324526521 97% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.5 5.70786347227 96% => OK
Paragraphs: 3.0 5.15768463074 58% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 8.0 5.25449101796 152% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.88822355289 73% => OK
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: 0.35177634004 0.218282227539 161% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.103018880445 0.0743258471296 139% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.129969629825 0.0701772020484 185% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.174799640746 0.128457276422 136% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.146928465515 0.0628817314937 234% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.2 14.3799401198 92% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 48.3550499002 102% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.73 12.5979740519 93% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.18 8.32208582834 98% => OK
difficult_words: 89.0 98.500998004 90% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 12.3882235529 93% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Minimum four paragraphs wanted.
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.