The advertising director assumes, that attendance of Super Screen Movie Production Company's movies decreased not because of the quality of movies itself, but due to the lack of people awareness. He recommends to allocate more money to marketing and put more advertising. While correlation stated are probable and logical, is will require more thoughts and data in order to make argument fully convincing.
First of all, advertising director claims that quality of Super Screen-produced movies haven't decreased in past years and even increased. As evidence, author uses the fact, that percentage of positive reviews by movie reviewers for a specific film increased. However, this argument is not convincing enough, as it provide positive dynamic for only one film of the Company. Maybe films produced in past year were really bad, with only one outlier from overall scale, which advertising director wrongly decided to use as an indicator of total company's films quality. It would be beneficial to know, what reviewers think about others Super Screen films.
Additionally, even if movie reviewers were positive about every Super Screen film it doesn't mean that general audience agree with them. Movie reviewers can praise the film, while viewers dislike it and don't recommend their friends to see it in cinema. So, author should provide more research about movie's quality with data both from movie reviewers and audience.
Another claim that advertising director makes is that public lack awareness that Super Screen movies are good. This is just a bold assumption without solid stands. Author provides no data to prove that fact to be true. Maybe viewers are aware of the films and its content, but are not willing to attend it because of various reasons, such as expensive tickets, lack of available cinemas or time, existing possibilities to watch movie online without additions expenses and many other factors. Some reliable viewer's survey can help to prove or disprove this assumption.
In conclusion, author fails to convince that decreased attendance of the movies happened due to public's lack of awareness, not because of movies bad quality or any other reason. It would require to have more data, such as research of quality of all recent Super Screen movies and survey of viewers, which will determine do people really aware of Super Screen movies and if they do, why they do not attend them.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 199, Rule ID: ADMIT_ENJOY_VB[1]
Message: This verb is used with the gerund form: 'recommends allocating'.
Suggestion: recommends allocating
...due to the lack of people awareness. He recommends to allocate more money to marketing and put more ad...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 88, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: haven't
...quality of Super Screen-produced movies havent decreased in past years and even increa...
^^^^^^
Line 2, column 211, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
..., that percentage of positive reviews by movie reviewers for a specific film incr...
^^
Line 3, column 86, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...sitive about every Super Screen film it doesnt mean that general audience agree with t...
^^^^^^
Line 3, column 202, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
... the film, while viewers dislike it and dont recommend their friends to see it in ci...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, if, may, really, so, while, in conclusion, such as, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 19.6327345309 61% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 12.9520958084 54% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 11.1786427146 134% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 27.0 28.8173652695 94% => OK
Preposition: 52.0 55.5748502994 94% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 16.3942115768 67% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2019.0 2260.96107784 89% => OK
No of words: 389.0 441.139720559 88% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.19023136247 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.44106776838 4.56307096286 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.55704603281 2.78398813304 92% => OK
Unique words: 202.0 204.123752495 99% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.519280205656 0.468620217663 111% => OK
syllable_count: 641.7 705.55239521 91% => 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: 2.0 0.471057884232 425% => OK
Article: 1.0 8.76447105788 11% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
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: 18.0 19.7664670659 91% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 58.6484872928 57.8364921388 101% => OK
Chars per sentence: 112.166666667 119.503703932 94% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.6111111111 23.324526521 93% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.72222222222 5.70786347227 83% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 5.25449101796 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 8.20758483034 146% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.88822355289 73% => 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: 0.418596812694 0.218282227539 192% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.130641660595 0.0743258471296 176% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.104090588912 0.0701772020484 148% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.240885950587 0.128457276422 188% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0762781716956 0.0628817314937 121% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.8 14.3799401198 96% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 48.3550499002 104% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.197005988 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.82 12.5979740519 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.49 8.32208582834 102% => OK
difficult_words: 94.0 98.500998004 95% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.