“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.”
This argument is taken from the memo by an advertising director of the Super Screen Movie Production Company. According to the argument, the number of viewers of Super Screen-produced movies has decreased and at the same time, the positive reviews about the movies saw a significant increase. So, the author assumes that the diminution in the number of viewers is due to lack of advertising and further concludes that Super Screen should allocate a greater percentage of their budget to movie advertising. However, the conclusion is derived from the assumptions for which there is no clear evidence, and hence, the argument is flawed and unconvincing.
Firstly, the author claims that fewer viewers watched Super Screen-produced movies. For this, author blames the insufficient advertising of movies. However, author has not explained what really caused the number of viewers to drop. There could be number of factors which were involved. First, the subject of the movie may no be very touching that can drive the people to make it watch. Also, it could be due to high prices of tickets during that time which attracted less people. The argument could have been strengthened if the author mentioned the clear causes of the reduction in the number of viewers.
Furthermore, the author mentions that percentage of positive reviews about he movies by movie reviewers increased during the same period. This again, sounds unconvincing without a substantive evidence. The author does not mention who the movie reviewers were. Were it the people who watched the movies? Were the reviews were from professional movie critics? These questions need to be answered to support the authors claim. A strong evidence which can indicate the source of the reviews will certainly help to strengthened the argument.
Finally, the author concludes that if more budget is allocated for movie advertising, it will help reaching people which subsequently increase the number of movie-goers. It is quite possible that advertising strongly can help to increase the number of viewers, yet it not supported by any proof that allocating more budget to advertising will produce the same result in case of Super Screen movies. The possible cause could be different as mentioned in previous paragraphs. So a research report indicating that advertising is really necessary for Super Screen Company to sour the number of viewers will fortify the argument.
In summary, the argument is flawed and unconvincing to the reader without substantive evidences to support the claims of the author. It is necessary to have full knowledge of all the underlying key factors to asses the argument.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 323, Rule ID: NOW[3]
Message: Did you mean 'now' (=at this moment) instead of 'no' (negation)?
Suggestion: now
...ed. First, the subject of the movie may no be very touching that can drive the peo...
^^
Line 3, column 468, Rule ID: FEWER_LESS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'fewer'? The noun people is countable.
Suggestion: fewer
...ickets during that time which attracted less people. The argument could have been st...
^^^^
Line 5, column 70, Rule ID: HE_THE[1]
Message: Did you mean 'about the movies'?
Suggestion: about the movies
...ons that percentage of positive reviews about he movies by movie reviewers increased during the...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 100, Rule ID: ADVISE_VBG[5]
Message: The verb 'help' is used with infinitive: 'to reach' or 'reach'.
Suggestion: to reach; reach
...ted for movie advertising, it will help reaching people which subsequently increase the ...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, first, firstly, furthermore, hence, however, if, may, really, so, then, in summary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 19.6327345309 107% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.9520958084 108% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 11.1786427146 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 17.0 13.6137724551 125% => OK
Pronoun: 23.0 28.8173652695 80% => OK
Preposition: 55.0 55.5748502994 99% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 16.3942115768 91% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2239.0 2260.96107784 99% => OK
No of words: 426.0 441.139720559 97% => OK
Chars per words: 5.2558685446 5.12650576532 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.54310108192 4.56307096286 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.83369116068 2.78398813304 102% => OK
Unique words: 191.0 204.123752495 94% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.448356807512 0.468620217663 96% => OK
syllable_count: 684.0 705.55239521 97% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.471057884232 0% => OK
Article: 14.0 8.76447105788 160% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.70958083832 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
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: 24.0 19.7664670659 121% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 22.8473053892 74% => OK
Sentence length SD: 50.3742762562 57.8364921388 87% => OK
Chars per sentence: 93.2916666667 119.503703932 78% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.75 23.324526521 76% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.04166666667 5.70786347227 71% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 14.0 8.20758483034 171% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.67664670659 86% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.291003540363 0.218282227539 133% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0909375718714 0.0743258471296 122% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.100387674446 0.0701772020484 143% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.165478971029 0.128457276422 129% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.114126579477 0.0628817314937 181% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.2 14.3799401198 85% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 54.22 48.3550499002 112% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 12.197005988 81% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.93 12.5979740519 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.11 8.32208582834 97% => OK
difficult_words: 98.0 98.500998004 99% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 12.3882235529 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 11.1389221557 79% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 Out of 6 -- The score is based on the average performance of 20,000 argument essays. This e-grader is not smart enough to check on arguments.
---------------------
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.