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 tries to come up with arguments to support their hypothesis that, lack of advertising is causing the decrease in people at super screen produced movies. Stating that, despite the great critic reviews, the number of people keep dwindling, hence people's lack of awareness of their movies is the issue. However, on scrutiny this argument shows that they fail to mention several factors, also revealing numerous instances of poor reasoning and the distortion of the view of the situation by providing weak claims. To garner support, that also stated they will increase the budget for advertising from this year, but don't go on to provide credible evidence to support their claim. Hence, the argument overall seems incomplete and unsubstantiated.
Firstly, the biggest leap taken in logic by the author is declaring that the content of the movie has no issue based on critics reviews, and not adding any proof to support their argument. Had the author mentioned, that they had a study with the people to check what was making them skip their movies, and content wasn't the primary reason for the lower turnouts. then it would have strengthen the author's arguments. In accordance with that the author also provided underwhelming proof that the readers actually read the critics reviews and the critics actually have a proper sense of understanding what the people actually want to watch.
Secondly, even if we assume that people had no issue with the content, there are multiple reasons possible for the lower audience at their movies. There are many factors for people to consider before going for the movies, per instance, what is the nearest theater to watch the movie? Are the screening timings suitable for them? Are there any other major events happening on the TV/internet during the same time? etc.
Thirdly, with the rise of streaming platforms, the movies now need to incentivize people to spend money and go to the theaters, when the same movie will be available to them at a minimal cost and in the comfort of their homes in a few months of time.
Finally, before concluding, the author concluded that public advertising was the best way to increase the audience counts, but they forgot to add any analysis to suggesting the same. Thus, an exhaustive and sturdy research has to made comparing "hit rates of advertisements vs cost of marketing" or "retention rate vs the type of marketing" to help eradicate digital marketing, influencer marketing and others before selecting advertising.
While the argument put forward is quite innovative and interesting, the presented data could have been more exhaustive in order to fully convince the readers. In conclusion, the author's argument seems unpersuasive and to help bolster their claims, they should provide more concrete evidence and analysis to determine whether their hypothesis is truly the best method to bring people in to watch super screen movies.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 7 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 8 2
No. of Sentences: 16 15
No. of Words: 482 350
No. of Characters: 2389 1500
No. of Different Words: 245 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.686 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.956 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.536 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 176 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 129 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 88 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 51 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 30.125 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 12.786 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.812 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.317 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.317 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.11 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 624, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
...get for advertising from this year, but dont go on to provide credible evidence to s...
^^^^
Line 2, column 315, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: wasn't
...ing them skip their movies, and content wasnt the primary reason for the lower turnou...
^^^^^
Line 2, column 364, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Then
... primary reason for the lower turnouts. then it would have strengthen the authors ar...
^^^^
Line 2, column 383, Rule ID: HAVE_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Use past participle here: 'strengthened'.
Suggestion: strengthened
... the lower turnouts. then it would have strengthen the authors arguments. In accordance wi...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 414, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Etc
...n the TV/internet during the same time? etc. Thirdly, with the rise of streaming p...
^^^
Line 6, column 179, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...onvince the readers. In conclusion, the authors argument seems unpersuasive and to help...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, finally, first, firstly, hence, however, if, second, secondly, so, then, third, thirdly, thus, while, as to, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 19.6327345309 71% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 12.9520958084 46% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 11.1786427146 134% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 31.0 28.8173652695 108% => OK
Preposition: 69.0 55.5748502994 124% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 16.3942115768 91% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2467.0 2260.96107784 109% => OK
No of words: 479.0 441.139720559 109% => OK
Chars per words: 5.1503131524 5.12650576532 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.67825486995 4.56307096286 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.72005424383 2.78398813304 98% => OK
Unique words: 257.0 204.123752495 126% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.536534446764 0.468620217663 114% => OK
syllable_count: 751.5 705.55239521 107% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 5.0 1.67365269461 299% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 8.0 4.22255489022 189% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 19.7664670659 91% => OK
Sentence length: 26.0 22.8473053892 114% => OK
Sentence length SD: 66.3954901414 57.8364921388 115% => OK
Chars per sentence: 137.055555556 119.503703932 115% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.6111111111 23.324526521 114% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.94444444444 5.70786347227 139% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 5.25449101796 114% => 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: 3.0 4.67664670659 64% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.170394865198 0.218282227539 78% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0508413634579 0.0743258471296 68% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0400092218501 0.0701772020484 57% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.083922105073 0.128457276422 65% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0244984739486 0.0628817314937 39% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.1 14.3799401198 112% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 45.09 48.3550499002 93% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 12.197005988 110% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.89 12.5979740519 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.98 8.32208582834 108% => OK
difficult_words: 123.0 98.500998004 125% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 12.3882235529 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 11.1389221557 111% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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.