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 given prompt concludes that the problem of fewer people attending super screen-produced movies is not with the quality of movies but with the public's lack of awareness that movies of good quality are available. Hence Super Screen should allocate a greater share of its budget next year to reach the public through advertising. The evidence provided by the author states that the percentage of positive reviews by movie reviewers about specific Super Screen movies has increased during the past year. Yet, fewer number of people are attending Super Screen-produced movies. Even though, the author has provided evidence to support his or her conclusion, it has many potential flaws that are left out by the author.
To begin with, the author has stated that the percentage of positive reviews has increased. However, the author has not paid attention to the word "percentage". There might be the case that the percentage may be increasing but there are less number of reviews itself out of which positive ones are in majority. There is also a possibility that, during the past year, the reviewers who provide potential negative reviews have decreased or at least have not attended the screening of the movie. Furthermore, the author assumes that the number of reviewers remains, more or less, the same which might not be the case always.
Moreover, the author assumes that advertising and public awareness is the major factor for the decline in people attending the Super Screen-produced movies. However, there might be more number of producers who produce more entertaining movies making it difficult for the Super Screen producers to persuade the public into watching their movies. Thus, there is a possibility that even though advertising is able to increase public awareness of the movies produced by Super Screen, but people are choosing not to watch because of the potential number of relatively better movies. Thus, Super Screen producers might have to focus more on their competition.
Finally, the author assumes that the reviews received are unbiased. There might be the case, that majority of the reviewers favor Super-Screen movies and thus watch with a biased mindset giving the movie a positive review. Not only that, there might be the case that reviews of other theaters and producers are better. Even though the reviews of Super Screen-produced movies are not bad, but in the relative and broader picture it might not be up to the mark.
Thus, all the above points undermine the argument and conclusion stated by the author. There might be more flaws in the prompt given which will further weaken the conclusion.
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: 3 2
No. of Sentences: 20 15
No. of Words: 431 350
No. of Characters: 2156 1500
No. of Different Words: 167 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.556 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.002 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.566 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 164 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 102 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 74 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 48 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.55 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.158 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.75 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.371 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.574 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.121 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 216, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Hence,
...t movies of good quality are available. Hence Super Screen should allocate a greater ...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 626, Rule ID: ADVERB_WORD_ORDER[3]
Message: The adverb 'always' is usually not used at the end of a sentence.
...s, the same which might not be the case always. Moreover, the author assumes that a...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, furthermore, hence, however, if, may, moreover, so, thus, at least, more or less, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 19.6327345309 112% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.9520958084 85% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 11.1786427146 107% => OK
Relative clauses : 19.0 13.6137724551 140% => OK
Pronoun: 23.0 28.8173652695 80% => OK
Preposition: 53.0 55.5748502994 95% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 16.3942115768 30% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2223.0 2260.96107784 98% => OK
No of words: 431.0 441.139720559 98% => OK
Chars per words: 5.15777262181 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.55637350225 4.56307096286 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.75096533072 2.78398813304 99% => OK
Unique words: 178.0 204.123752495 87% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.412993039443 0.468620217663 88% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 691.2 705.55239521 98% => 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: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 19.7664670659 101% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 48.3786109763 57.8364921388 84% => OK
Chars per sentence: 111.15 119.503703932 93% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.55 23.324526521 92% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.75 5.70786347227 101% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 15.0 8.20758483034 183% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.88822355289 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.42736838561 0.218282227539 196% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.152343311723 0.0743258471296 205% => Sentence topic similarity is high.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.130355726549 0.0701772020484 186% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.242369959434 0.128457276422 189% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.15995766408 0.0628817314937 254% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.6 14.3799401198 95% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 48.3550499002 104% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.197005988 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.65 12.5979740519 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.61 8.32208582834 91% => OK
difficult_words: 80.0 98.500998004 81% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => OK
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.