"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 the argument recommends that Super Screen should allocate a greater share of its budget next year to reach people through advertising as the percentage of positive reviews by movie reviewers increased though few people attended those movies past year compared to other years. There are few questions which need to be answered to evaluate the recommendation.
First question which needs to be answered to evaluate the recommendation is whether same amount of people were reviewed during the past year compared to other years. If the amount of the people reviewed during past year year is less compared to other years, then the recommendation might not be good. If answer to the above question is yes, then this can provide support for the stated recommendation.
Second question which needs to be answered is whether the people reviewed are unbiased to Super Screen movies. If the people reviewed are biased and in the favor of Super Screen movies, then the percentage of positive reviews will be more during the past year compared to other years. If they are unbiased, then we can get correct estimate of positive reviews about specific Super Screen movies and the answer to this question can strengthen the argument. Thus positive response to this above question strengthens their argument and negative response can weaken the argument.
Third question which needs to be answered is whether people attend the movies based on positive reviews. A positive response to this question supports the argument .A negative response to the question weakens the argument.
If the above stated questions are answered, then they can provide support in deciding whether the recommendation and the argument on which it is based is reasonable.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 2 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 12 15
No. of Words: 283 350
No. of Characters: 1438 1500
No. of Different Words: 106 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.102 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.081 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.616 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 115 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 82 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 66 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 16 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 23.583 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.684 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.75 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.466 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.688 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.199 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 215, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: year
...ount of the people reviewed during past year year is less compared to other years then th...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, if, second, so, then, third, thus
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 19.6327345309 97% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.9520958084 69% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 11.1786427146 36% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 6.0 13.6137724551 44% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 12.0 28.8173652695 42% => OK
Preposition: 42.0 55.5748502994 76% => OK
Nominalization: 20.0 16.3942115768 122% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1458.0 2260.96107784 64% => OK
No of words: 283.0 441.139720559 64% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.1519434629 5.12650576532 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.10153676581 4.56307096286 90% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.61629221499 2.78398813304 94% => OK
Unique words: 104.0 204.123752495 51% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.367491166078 0.468620217663 78% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 451.8 705.55239521 64% => 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: 1.0 8.76447105788 11% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 0.0 4.22255489022 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 1.0 19.7664670659 5% => 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: 283.0 22.8473053892 1239% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 0.0 57.8364921388 0% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 1458.0 119.503703932 1220% => Less chars_per_sentence wanted.
Words per sentence: 283.0 23.324526521 1213% => Less words per sentence wanted.
Discourse Markers: 40.0 5.70786347227 701% => Less transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 1.0 8.20758483034 12% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 0.0 6.88822355289 0% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.67664670659 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.356569368131 0.218282227539 163% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.356569368131 0.0743258471296 480% => Sentence topic similarity is high.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0701772020484 0% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.220148540238 0.128457276422 171% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.148267270886 0.0628817314937 236% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 144.3 14.3799401198 1003% => Automated_readability_index is high.
flesch_reading_ease: -215.77 48.3550499002 -446% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 0.0 7.1628742515 0% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 113.7 12.197005988 932% => Flesch kincaid grade is high.
coleman_liau_index: 14.07 12.5979740519 112% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 19.74 8.32208582834 237% => Dale chall readability score is high.
difficult_words: 37.0 98.500998004 38% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 54.0 12.3882235529 436% => Linsear_write_formula is high.
gunning_fog: 115.2 11.1389221557 1034% => Gunning_fog is high.
text_standard: 54.0 11.9071856287 454% => The average readability is very high. Good job!
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.