"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 argument statement says that the Super screen should allocate more budget on next year on advertising to reach more number of viewers as these are not reaching to the vierwers. The evidences cited to support this argument are : Report from marketing department, more percentage of positive reviews by the movie reviewers and failing of the reviews to reach it to the viewers. However, the premises given fail to justify or strenghthen the weak argument. The reasons why this argument is rendered inconclusive are : inadequacy or authenticity of the data, fallacious assumptions and wrong analogy. The reasons are dilineated below :
Firstly, the author says that according to the report of the marketing department, during the last year the number of people who have attended Super-screen movies are fewer than the any other year, but the author hadn't provided the exact data of the people who have attended previously and those who are attending now. So, there is inadequacy of the data. Furthermore, there is no authenticity of the data, i.e. how can we say that this data is reliable to say whether the number of viewers decreased or increased, so a proper reliable source and also the data from the other sources are also needed to corroborate the author's argument. Moreover, one year data is not enough to say whether the viewers are decreasing in number or not. More amount of data is required. So, the argument is inconclusive.
Secondly, the author says that there is increase in percentage positive reviews by the movie reviewers but he hadn't mentioned about the actual number of movie reviewers who reviewed the movies there. What if the number is too small? Eventually the number of positive reviews will be higher then. Also, what if the reviews of these movie reviewers are tendentious? Also, they are paid or bribed to give positive reviews in order to lure more number of viewers. So, reviews from disintersted people are required otherwise, this argument is inconclusive.
Thirdly, the author says that the public's unawareness is the only reson for them not watching the Super-screen produced movies, but the author hadn't mentioned about the type of movies they produce, like of what genre? What if the majority of people who like movies are young then they will love sci-fi or thriller and super-screen produce romantic or animatic movies or vice-versa can also be true. Moreover, it is also plausible that the people have no resource to watch this movie on like the multiplexes around them are too costly, or there is no multiplex around them . So, there are numerous other possibilities of notb watching the Super-screen produced movies. So, the argument is inconclucive.
So, in nutshell i would like to conclude that the argument is palagued with number of fallacious assumptions. Thatswhy it is rendered inconclusive and the author need to provide more amount of data in order to prove his statement conclusive.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 214, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: hadn't
...than the any other year, but the author hadnt provided the exact data of the people w...
^^^^^
Line 2, column 620, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...rces are also needed to corroborate the authors argument. Moreover, one year data is no...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 80, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... increase in percentage positive reviews by the movie reviewers but he hadnt ment...
^^
Line 3, column 112, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: hadn't
... reviews by the movie reviewers but he hadnt mentioned about the actual number of mo...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 258, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...r is too small? Eventually the number of positive reviews will be higher then. Al...
^^
Line 4, column 35, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'publics'' or 'public's'?
Suggestion: publics'; public's
...ive. Thirdly, the author says that the publics unawareness is the only reson for them ...
^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 144, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: hadn't
...-screen produced movies, but the author hadnt mentioned about the type of movies they...
^^^^^
Line 4, column 491, Rule ID: NOUN_AROUND_IT[1]
Message: Consider using 'the surrounding multiplexes'?
Suggestion: the surrounding multiplexes
...no resource to watch this movie on like the multiplexes around them are too costly, or there is no multiple...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 571, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Don't put a space before the full stop
Suggestion: .
...ly, or there is no multiplex around them . So, there are numerous other possibilit...
^^
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...es. So, the argument is inconclucive. So, in nutshell i would like to conclude t...
^^
Line 5, column 17, Rule ID: I_LOWERCASE[2]
Message: Did you mean 'I'?
Suggestion: I
...ment is inconclucive. So, in nutshell i would like to conclude that the argumen...
^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, furthermore, however, if, moreover, second, secondly, so, then, third, thirdly
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 32.0 19.6327345309 163% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 12.9520958084 54% => OK
Conjunction : 18.0 11.1786427146 161% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 13.6137724551 88% => OK
Pronoun: 28.0 28.8173652695 97% => OK
Preposition: 61.0 55.5748502994 110% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 16.3942115768 79% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2477.0 2260.96107784 110% => OK
No of words: 485.0 441.139720559 110% => OK
Chars per words: 5.10721649485 5.12650576532 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.69283662038 4.56307096286 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.77367112934 2.78398813304 100% => OK
Unique words: 204.0 204.123752495 100% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.420618556701 0.468620217663 90% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 789.3 705.55239521 112% => 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
Interrogative: 4.0 0.471057884232 849% => Less interrogative sentences wanted.
Article: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.70958083832 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 19.7664670659 116% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 83.502894916 57.8364921388 144% => OK
Chars per sentence: 107.695652174 119.503703932 90% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.0869565217 23.324526521 90% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.5652173913 5.70786347227 80% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 11.0 5.25449101796 209% => Less language errors wanted.
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.20758483034 134% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => 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: 0.346659234406 0.218282227539 159% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0920373705039 0.0743258471296 124% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.108103535087 0.0701772020484 154% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.176335295332 0.128457276422 137% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0936567437051 0.0628817314937 149% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.2 14.3799401198 92% => Automated_readability_index is low.
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: 12.36 12.5979740519 98% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.06 8.32208582834 97% => OK
difficult_words: 104.0 98.500998004 106% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 12.3882235529 93% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => 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 -- 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.