"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 argument is about a memo from the advertising director of the Super Screen Movie Production Company that says that the company has to increase its budget for marketing to regain the customers it lost during the past year. The director states, getting more percentage of positive reviews, the advertisements not reaching the targetted audience, good quality of movies produced as reasons for his assertion. However, before considering the director's suggestion, the following questions have to be answered.
First of all, the director assumes that the positive reviews received were true. What if the positive reviews received are not genuine? It might be possible that these reviews were given by hard-core fans of the productions company or more possibly, die-hard fans of a particular hero or a heroine. Since it was their idol's movie, it is possible that they were trying to advertise the movie by publishing fake reviews. Also, what if the positive reviews were only for one particular movie? Just because the average went up, it does not mean that most of the movies were of good quality. If any of this is true, the director has arrived at the wrong conclusion and his argument will not hold water.
Secondly, the director posits that the company's ads were not reaching its prospective audience. But what if the ads reached the intended audience, if not more, and still the footfall for the movies is less? It might be possible that the movies were boring and that is the reason for the lower footfall. Also, what if the quality of the ads displayed is bad? It is plausible that the movie was good and to save some money, the ads were assigned to a local company that doesn't do well. If this is true, then the conclusion the author arrived at saying it was the reach of ads that is causing the problem might not be true.
Finally, the director said that by increasing their budget for advertising, the production company will regain its former glory. What if by increasing its budget to advertising, the company had to cut short the budget to the actual movie or lay off some employees or technicians that were important for making a good movie? It might be possible that the company had a limited overall budget, and if it were to increase the advertising, it had to compromise on the quality of the movie itself. As a result, the company had to work with less renowned actors or produce lower quality movies that altogether hampers the company's image in the public.
In conclusion, though the director of the marketing department suggested some sound ways that can bring the company's success back, his claims were not well substantiated with solid evidence. Had he provided more clarity on the quality of the ads published, a detailed survey of the positive reviews received, one can arrive at a better conclusion.
Comments
Essay evaluations by e-grader
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 247, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ring the past year. The director states, getting more percentage of positive revi...
^^
Line 1, column 444, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'directors'' or 'director's'?
Suggestion: directors'; director's
...ertion. However, before considering the directors suggestion, the following questions hav...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 469, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...s were assigned to a local company that doesnt do well. If this is true, then the conc...
^^^^^^
Line 11, column 257, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ity on the quality of the ads published, a detailed survey of the positive review...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, however, if, second, secondly, so, still, then, well, as to, in conclusion, as a result, 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: 8.0 12.9520958084 62% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 11.1786427146 98% => OK
Relative clauses : 17.0 13.6137724551 125% => OK
Pronoun: 43.0 28.8173652695 149% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 49.0 55.5748502994 88% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 16.3942115768 67% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2358.0 2260.96107784 104% => OK
No of words: 484.0 441.139720559 110% => OK
Chars per words: 4.87190082645 5.12650576532 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.69041575982 4.56307096286 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.59851651815 2.78398813304 93% => OK
Unique words: 213.0 204.123752495 104% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.440082644628 0.468620217663 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 739.8 705.55239521 105% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 4.96107784431 161% => OK
Article: 13.0 8.76447105788 148% => OK
Subordination: 7.0 2.70958083832 258% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 19.7664670659 111% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 45.9412128848 57.8364921388 79% => OK
Chars per sentence: 107.181818182 119.503703932 90% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.0 23.324526521 94% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.81818181818 5.70786347227 102% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 15.0 8.20758483034 183% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => 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: 0.202913328667 0.218282227539 93% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0668948958145 0.0743258471296 90% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0572414497266 0.0701772020484 82% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.119649253015 0.128457276422 93% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.058934082071 0.0628817314937 94% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.5 14.3799401198 87% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 57.61 48.3550499002 119% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.197005988 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.97 12.5979740519 87% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.09 8.32208582834 97% => OK
difficult_words: 103.0 98.500998004 105% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 12.3882235529 85% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 247, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ring the past year. The director states, getting more percentage of positive revi...
^^
Line 1, column 444, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'directors'' or 'director's'?
Suggestion: directors'; director's
...ertion. However, before considering the directors suggestion, the following questions hav...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 469, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...s were assigned to a local company that doesnt do well. If this is true, then the conc...
^^^^^^
Line 11, column 257, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ity on the quality of the ads published, a detailed survey of the positive review...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, however, if, second, secondly, so, still, then, well, as to, in conclusion, as a result, 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: 8.0 12.9520958084 62% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 11.1786427146 98% => OK
Relative clauses : 17.0 13.6137724551 125% => OK
Pronoun: 43.0 28.8173652695 149% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 49.0 55.5748502994 88% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 16.3942115768 67% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2358.0 2260.96107784 104% => OK
No of words: 484.0 441.139720559 110% => OK
Chars per words: 4.87190082645 5.12650576532 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.69041575982 4.56307096286 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.59851651815 2.78398813304 93% => OK
Unique words: 213.0 204.123752495 104% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.440082644628 0.468620217663 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 739.8 705.55239521 105% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 4.96107784431 161% => OK
Article: 13.0 8.76447105788 148% => OK
Subordination: 7.0 2.70958083832 258% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 19.7664670659 111% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 45.9412128848 57.8364921388 79% => OK
Chars per sentence: 107.181818182 119.503703932 90% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.0 23.324526521 94% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.81818181818 5.70786347227 102% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 15.0 8.20758483034 183% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => 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: 0.202913328667 0.218282227539 93% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0668948958145 0.0743258471296 90% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0572414497266 0.0701772020484 82% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.119649253015 0.128457276422 93% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.058934082071 0.0628817314937 94% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.5 14.3799401198 87% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 57.61 48.3550499002 119% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.197005988 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.97 12.5979740519 87% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.09 8.32208582834 97% => OK
difficult_words: 103.0 98.500998004 105% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 12.3882235529 85% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.