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.
While it may be true that the lack of awareness about the super screen movie production company among the people might be the reason behind the decline in attendance of the number of people at the movies, but the author fails to make a cogent case about convincing to increase the budget in order to reach the public through advertising. Thus, this argument is rife with holes and assumptions that the author needs to elucidate on and clarify the assumed recommendations.
Firstly, the author claims that the contents of the positive reviews about the super screen movies are not reaching the prospective viewers. Well, the question here is that who are these prospective viewers?; and How is the awareness of the positive reviews among the public an issue if the report from the marketing department defines a decline in the number of people attending the Super Screen produced movies?. This clearly means that the people were consummately aware of the quality of the movies before and maybe the decline is not indicative of the awareness among them but the real issue is with quality and that is why people stopped coming to attend the super screen movies. Thus, the author may need to look into the reasoning carefully as the inference drawn by him does not seem to make valid point.
Additionally, the author also claims that the percentage of positive reviews by movie reviewers about specific super screen movies has actually increased during the past year. An important question to the authors assumption is that What were the total number of people that constituted the percentage for positive reviews?. The author does not define how many people were a part of this survey and if the number of people has decreased in the past year, then one will definitely assume that the survey was carried among a small number of people. Thus, the author needs to provide a full normed survey elaborating on the percentage of viewers giving positive reviews.
In the end, the author has made many assumptions in order to convince the production company to allocate a greater share of its budget to increase the advertising practices. If these assumptions, however prove to be correct then the
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 266, Rule ID: ALLOW_TO[1]
Message: Did you mean 'increasing'? Or maybe you should add a pronoun? In active voice, 'convince' + 'to' takes an object, usually a pronoun.
Suggestion: increasing
... to make a cogent case about convincing to increase the budget in order to reach the public...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 206, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...past year. An important question to the authors assumption is that What were the total ...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 521, Rule ID: SMALL_NUMBER_OF[1]
Message: Specify a number, remove phrase, use 'a few', or use 'some'
Suggestion: a few; some
...ssume that the survey was carried among a small number of people. Thus, the author needs to provi...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, first, firstly, however, if, look, may, so, then, thus, well, while
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 19.6327345309 81% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 12.9520958084 39% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 11.1786427146 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 19.0 28.8173652695 66% => OK
Preposition: 58.0 55.5748502994 104% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 16.3942115768 55% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1830.0 2260.96107784 81% => OK
No of words: 370.0 441.139720559 84% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.94594594595 5.12650576532 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.38581623665 4.56307096286 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.56845503866 2.78398813304 92% => OK
Unique words: 171.0 204.123752495 84% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.462162162162 0.468620217663 99% => OK
syllable_count: 578.7 705.55239521 82% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 4.96107784431 40% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.22255489022 24% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 19.7664670659 61% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 30.0 22.8473053892 131% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 76.008588696 57.8364921388 131% => OK
Chars per sentence: 152.5 119.503703932 128% => OK
Words per sentence: 30.8333333333 23.324526521 132% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.33333333333 5.70786347227 128% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.20758483034 122% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 6.88822355289 15% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.34003535087 0.218282227539 156% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.136597404183 0.0743258471296 184% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.154657272542 0.0701772020484 220% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.189063316287 0.128457276422 147% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.129359076241 0.0628817314937 206% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.3 14.3799401198 120% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 41.03 48.3550499002 85% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.0 12.197005988 123% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.02 12.5979740519 95% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.24 8.32208582834 99% => OK
difficult_words: 73.0 98.500998004 74% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 18.0 12.3882235529 145% => OK
gunning_fog: 14.0 11.1389221557 126% => OK
text_standard: 18.0 11.9071856287 151% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.