"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."
From the memo from the advertising director of the Super Screen Movie Production Company (SSM) is stated that they have no problem with movie quality rather it is the public's lack of awareness of movie quality based on evidence that during the past year, fewer people watched super screen movie still positive review increased than prvious year , so they should invest on advertising to public. However before this decision implementation some quations should be answered to understand that is this decision reasonable or not?
Firstly, is the past year is comparable with that pervious year? If not then there may be some other fators working here for getting good positive reviews. For instances, maybe there will be only really good movie could be played than previous any other year. If this true, then it is clear, how many peoples attended there it does not matter, peoples would give positive review for good movies. If this unstated assumptions may true then the recomendation will have no good effect other than the waste of money.
Secondly, can there a special catagory of movies were playing? For instance, only animation movies were playing and the spectators were only yong boys/girls and for this case, they would enjoy the animation whatever the quality and would eventually give good reviews. If this resons hold any water then the recommendation will fall apart and have no significance in its implication.
Thirdly, may movie reviewers who watched the SSM movies have less knowledge of movie quality? For instance, in special case where all the reviewers are lover of only action and have no great sense of story,messages imbeddeed in movies or they only love outer appearance like good graphics or visully very pleasing then it would be good guess they will give good review for that poor quality movies. So, if this true the recommendation holds no result and will fail.
In conculation, before make this recomendation for company, this unstated quations/reasons should be clearly answered. So, recomenders need to be more clear and lucid in explaing the decision for implementing it.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 5 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 15 2
No. of Sentences: 15 15
No. of Words: 348 350
No. of Characters: 1721 1500
No. of Different Words: 175 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.319 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.945 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.487 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 113 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 83 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 56 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 29 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 23.2 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 15.354 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.933 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.323 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.581 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.047 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 343, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma, but not before the comma
Suggestion: ,
...itive review increased than prvious year , so they should invest on advertising to...
^^
Line 1, column 394, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: However,
...should invest on advertising to public. However before this decision implementation som...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... is this decision reasonable or not? Firstly, is the past year is comparable ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 414, 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.
...d give positive review for good movies. If this unstated assumptions may true then...
^^
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ffect other than the waste of money. Secondly, can there a special catagory o...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 159, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ere playing and the spectators were only yong boys/girls and for this case, they ...
^^
Line 7, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... no significance in its implication. Thirdly, may movie reviewers who watched...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 225, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma
Suggestion: , messages
... action and have no great sense of story,messages imbeddeed in movies or they only love o...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ation holds no result and will fail. In conculation, before make this recomen...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, firstly, however, if, may, really, second, secondly, so, still, then, third, thirdly, for instance
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 19.6327345309 87% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 18.0 12.9520958084 139% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 13.6137724551 51% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 25.0 28.8173652695 87% => OK
Preposition: 28.0 55.5748502994 50% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 15.0 16.3942115768 91% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1792.0 2260.96107784 79% => OK
No of words: 345.0 441.139720559 78% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.19420289855 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.3097767484 4.56307096286 94% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.66335399619 2.78398813304 96% => OK
Unique words: 179.0 204.123752495 88% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.51884057971 0.468620217663 111% => OK
syllable_count: 540.0 705.55239521 77% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 4.96107784431 40% => OK
Article: 0.0 8.76447105788 0% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.70958083832 221% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 19.7664670659 76% => 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: 90.2134259532 57.8364921388 156% => OK
Chars per sentence: 119.466666667 119.503703932 100% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.0 23.324526521 99% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.0 5.70786347227 123% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 9.0 5.25449101796 171% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.20758483034 122% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 6.88822355289 29% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.67664670659 64% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.258322885694 0.218282227539 118% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.090015354378 0.0743258471296 121% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.10285958532 0.0701772020484 147% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.14752703266 0.128457276422 115% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.111672247436 0.0628817314937 178% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.5 14.3799401198 101% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 48.13 48.3550499002 100% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.197005988 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.12 12.5979740519 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.35 8.32208582834 100% => OK
difficult_words: 78.0 98.500998004 79% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 12.3882235529 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.1389221557 101% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 62.5 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.75 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.