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 author concludes that public is not aware of quality movies available in thier vicinity and therefore the company, Super Screen Movie Production, would allocate higher share of its budget in advertising. The auther claims that the content is not reaching to public despite getting positive feedback by the movie reviewers. However, the author ignores the negative feedback of the movies which might have been reviewed by genuine viewers. This argument is not convincing for various reasons.
First of all, allocating a greater share of company's budget, is based on the questionable assumption that all the movies by the company are quality movies. Also, the author judge the quality of the movie just on the basis of movie reviewers. It is highly possible that movie reviewers always review positive feedback to attract the viewers. There are other factors like certificatie, ratings, trailer, casting, storyline, geniune reviews to decide the quality of the movie which the author fails to claim. Hence the author's generalization is unreliable.
Second the author assumes that according to the marketing reports the content is not spreading accross the people. This assumption is unwarranted. It seems equally reasonable to assume that the marketing has not taken enought efforts to spread the releases and also not actually spreading to the target audience. Hence it is presemptous to conclude that increasing the budget of marketing will drive better results.
In sum, this argument is defective mainly because of the past reports are not scrutinzed properly and the quality of the content is not judged on all the factors of the movie. To strengthen the argument, the author must, at very best, provide significant details about where marketing budget are utilized and and analyse the negative reviews of movies for improvision.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 507, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Hence,
... movie which the author fails to claim. Hence the authors generalization is unreliabl...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 517, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...ch the author fails to claim. Hence the authors generalization is unreliable. Second...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 314, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Hence,
...ually spreading to the target audience. Hence it is presemptous to conclude that incr...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 306, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: and
...out where marketing budget are utilized and and analyse the negative reviews of movies ...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, first, hence, however, if, second, so, then, therefore, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 19.6327345309 81% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 12.9520958084 31% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 11.1786427146 45% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 10.0 13.6137724551 73% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 14.0 28.8173652695 49% => OK
Preposition: 37.0 55.5748502994 67% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 16.3942115768 49% => More nominalization wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1555.0 2260.96107784 69% => OK
No of words: 291.0 441.139720559 66% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.34364261168 5.12650576532 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.13022058845 4.56307096286 91% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.67955753397 2.78398813304 96% => OK
Unique words: 153.0 204.123752495 75% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.525773195876 0.468620217663 112% => OK
syllable_count: 487.8 705.55239521 69% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.471057884232 0% => OK
Article: 5.0 8.76447105788 57% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.70958083832 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 19.7664670659 76% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => OK
Sentence length SD: 52.2321314476 57.8364921388 90% => OK
Chars per sentence: 103.666666667 119.503703932 87% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.4 23.324526521 83% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.6 5.70786347227 98% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.20758483034 61% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.88822355289 73% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.67664670659 107% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.257930912245 0.218282227539 118% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0824587199863 0.0743258471296 111% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.067689817439 0.0701772020484 96% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.149798777863 0.128457276422 117% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0647737417161 0.0628817314937 103% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.4 14.3799401198 93% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 43.73 48.3550499002 90% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.69 12.5979740519 109% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.41 8.32208582834 113% => OK
difficult_words: 89.0 98.500998004 90% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => 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.