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 about specific Super Screen movies have increased in this year.Clearly,the contents of these reviews are not reaching enough to our prospective viewers.Thus the problem lies not in the quality of our movies but with the lack of awareness that good movies are available.Super Screen Movies should thus allocate a greater share of its budget next year to reaching public through advertising.
The advertising director of the Super Screen Movie Production Company recommends that the allocation of advertising should have greater share of the overall budget next year with the support that the past year, lowest amount of people have attended their movies despite the fact that the percentage of positive reviews have increased during the past year.
When the director mentions that fewer people attended the company's produced movie, what is the amount of people it has been deviating by. For example, if the year before the past year they had 1 million people attending their produced movie but the past year, the movies have been attended by nine hundred fifty thousand people. The decrease is not sufficient enough to go increase the budget allocation. One might argue that the amount of people have been lowest in the past year, but we don't know by what sort of deviation is seen. It might have been a stagnant graph and there would have been a small drop in numbers.
Secondly, one has to ask what is the percentage of people who have watched the company's produced movies and given reviews. As the reviews could be given by a vocal minority which might not reflect the overall reflection of the audience. If that is the case then might go against the director's recommendation, but if the percentage is quite substantial then it might lead to director's recommendation. Apart from that, other question is what if they had produced niche movies. If that is the case, then it would explain the increase in percentage of positive reviews and lower numbers and this would make us not go with director's recommendation.
Thirdly, one has to ask what is the current allocation of their advertising budget, what sort of quantative effect it has and how much it should be increased by. Let us consider a situation where the current allocation is 70 percent which is already a substantial amount and increasing it might not have that big of an impact. At the same time the company might be spending 5 percent, in that case going with director's recommendation would be beneficial. Apart from that, if the amount of people awared with the amount of advertising money spent is non-linear than this would support director's recommendation in case where the equation is less than linear and be against in the case where the equation is more than linear.
Hence, the questions mentioned above need to be answered before we go with author's recommendation or have to come up with a different recommendation if the questions hint otherwise. Increasing advertising allocation might increase attendence or it might be redundant and lose company money.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 4 2
No. of Sentences: 17 15
No. of Words: 446 350
No. of Characters: 2167 1500
No. of Different Words: 177 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.596 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.859 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.727 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 144 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 109 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 80 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 52 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 26.235 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.973 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.529 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.359 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.57 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.117 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 210, Rule ID: THE_SUPERLATIVE[2]
Message: A determiner is probably missing here: ', the lowest'.
Suggestion: , the lowest
...year with the support that the past year, lowest amount of people have attended their mo...
^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 490, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
...ve been lowest in the past year, but we dont know by what sort of deviation is seen....
^^^^
Line 5, column 124, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “As” 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.
...anys produced movies and given reviews. As the reviews could be given by a vocal m...
^^
Line 5, column 284, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'directors'' or 'director's'?
Suggestion: directors'; director's
...t is the case then might go against the directors recommendation, but if the percentage i...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 292, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ht be redundant and lose company money.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, hence, if, second, secondly, so, then, third, thirdly, apart from, as to, for example, sort of
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 26.0 19.6327345309 132% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 18.0 12.9520958084 139% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 11.1786427146 116% => OK
Relative clauses : 18.0 13.6137724551 132% => OK
Pronoun: 30.0 28.8173652695 104% => OK
Preposition: 55.0 55.5748502994 99% => OK
Nominalization: 21.0 16.3942115768 128% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2206.0 2260.96107784 98% => OK
No of words: 445.0 441.139720559 101% => OK
Chars per words: 4.95730337079 5.12650576532 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.59293186426 4.56307096286 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.75038186971 2.78398813304 99% => OK
Unique words: 186.0 204.123752495 91% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.41797752809 0.468620217663 89% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 676.8 705.55239521 96% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 4.96107784431 20% => OK
Article: 4.0 8.76447105788 46% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.70958083832 221% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 19.7664670659 86% => OK
Sentence length: 26.0 22.8473053892 114% => OK
Sentence length SD: 68.3348158615 57.8364921388 118% => OK
Chars per sentence: 129.764705882 119.503703932 109% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.1764705882 23.324526521 112% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.82352941176 5.70786347227 102% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 5.25449101796 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 6.88822355289 44% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.67664670659 128% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.278832510707 0.218282227539 128% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0906796006951 0.0743258471296 122% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.100933585606 0.0701772020484 144% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.175740942775 0.128457276422 137% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.127271538963 0.0628817314937 202% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.0 14.3799401198 104% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 53.55 48.3550499002 111% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.197005988 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.78 12.5979740519 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.66 8.32208582834 92% => OK
difficult_words: 77.0 98.500998004 78% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 18.0 12.3882235529 145% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 11.1389221557 111% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => 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.