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.
The author of this argument fails to account for numerous gaps. Firstly, the decline in the attendance of Super Screen produced movies compared to the previous year may be due to some other reason. Secondly, what if the overall reduction in attendance is the reason that the percentage of positive reviews has surged. Thirdly, maybe the audience has found a better source of entertainment implying that in spite of having knowledge about the movie they are choosing to ignore the advertisement. Hence, the conclusion by the author certainly has many gaps, therefore, cannot be warranted using the reasons presented.
One of the plausible reasons for the lack of attendance from previous years could be that the economy has suffered in the interim year implying that people just don't have enough money to spend on Super Screen movies given the deteriorating situation of the economy. Another reason can be that the movie halls where the Super Screen movie is released may not be well maintained or are not able to provide the experience they managed to provide in the past years. Hence, the author needs more context to justify his/her deduction for making the conclusion more plausible. On the of chance even if believe the author's deductions are indeed warranted still a lot more evidence would be required to reach his/her conclusion.
Similarly, the report implying that the percentage of positive reviews has increased can very well imply what the author deduces but he/she here also fails to provide the exact details and without them deduction definitely becomes implausible and the finding from the report becomes open to a wide range of interpretation. Where the finding can imply that the movies content were actually not that good due to the fact that the postive reviews soared when the overall attendence reduced. Thus , the problem may actually be with the content of the movies.
Even if the far fetched deduction of the author regarding the two facts from reports as disscussed previously is true. The need for allocating greater budget is still not justified as the audience may just have found a better way of entertaining themeselves maybe because of home theaters.
To conclude, since the author fails to justify many of his/her deduction. The recommendation is certainly based on unwarranted deductions, hence is perhaps not a good recommendation.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 8 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 6 2
No. of Sentences: 16 15
No. of Words: 392 350
No. of Characters: 1946 1500
No. of Different Words: 195 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.45 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.964 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.658 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 142 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 110 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 70 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 46 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 24.5 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 11.462 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.812 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.329 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.571 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.118 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 162, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
... interim year implying that people just dont have enough money to spend on Super Scr...
^^^^
Line 5, column 324, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “Where” 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.
...open to a wide range of interpretation. Where the finding can imply that the movies c...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 493, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma, but not before the comma
Suggestion: ,
...hen the overall attendence reduced. Thus , the problem may actually be with the co...
^^
Line 7, column 66, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...eduction of the author regarding the two facts from reports as disscussed previou...
^^
Line 9, column 184, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...e is perhaps not a good recommendation.
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, first, firstly, hence, if, may, regarding, second, secondly, similarly, so, still, therefore, third, thirdly, thus, well, in spite of
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 19.6327345309 87% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.9520958084 85% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 11.1786427146 36% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 12.0 13.6137724551 88% => OK
Pronoun: 21.0 28.8173652695 73% => OK
Preposition: 47.0 55.5748502994 85% => OK
Nominalization: 20.0 16.3942115768 122% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1994.0 2260.96107784 88% => OK
No of words: 387.0 441.139720559 88% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.15245478036 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.43534841618 4.56307096286 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.73704059546 2.78398813304 98% => OK
Unique words: 198.0 204.123752495 97% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.511627906977 0.468620217663 109% => OK
syllable_count: 622.8 705.55239521 88% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 0.0 4.96107784431 0% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
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: 24.0 22.8473053892 105% => OK
Sentence length SD: 67.6491119214 57.8364921388 117% => OK
Chars per sentence: 124.625 119.503703932 104% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.1875 23.324526521 104% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.625 5.70786347227 169% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 5.25449101796 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.67664670659 21% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.240439119379 0.218282227539 110% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0730912989861 0.0743258471296 98% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0904471426732 0.0701772020484 129% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.113434280566 0.128457276422 88% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0921135485098 0.0628817314937 146% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.9 14.3799401198 104% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 47.12 48.3550499002 97% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 12.197005988 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.89 12.5979740519 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.58 8.32208582834 103% => OK
difficult_words: 92.0 98.500998004 93% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 12.3882235529 85% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.1389221557 104% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 75.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.5 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.