The argument asserts that fewer people have attended Super Screen -produced movies therefore a greater budget should be consider for advertising to beware people of the quality of the movie and this would be helpful. The authors provides reasons to hold this opinion. While this seems convincing at first glance, there are significant underlying flaw that raise doubt about the author's conclusion.
First, the author unfairly assumes that fewer people attend the movies during the last year because they were not aware of the quality of the movies while no evidence is offered to substantiate the causality. This question is that whether the company has asked the people to know what time is their best time. If the producer could find a good time which is suitable to a majority of the people, it can enhance the viewers.
Second, the argument unfairly relies upon the assumption that since movie reviewers have a positive opinion regarding specific Super Screen movies, the people have the same point of view. While we should consider that the reviewers totally consider technical criteria which is less important to the viewers. A majority of them just want to enjoy watching an exciting movie rather than a technical or professional one. The author should answer this question that whether reviewers evaluating a movie, consider points which are concerned by the viewers or they just have their own evaluation factors.
In addition, we are not informed if the company has instituted a survey to gather reviewers' opinions or not. If so, this survey might be distorted and unreliable. The company might create this false poll in order to influence the viewers and gain its own benefits. We are not informed if the survey would be confidential. If not, the reviewers might provide false information that they believed that the company questioners approve of. In either case, there is no evidence to prove that a majority of movie reviewers have positive opinion regarding these movies.
In sum, this argument lacks concrete evidence to substantiate the claim. If author were to answer mentioned questions and provide evidence regarding the main reason of not attending the movies, criteria for evaluating the movies and real opinion of the reviewers regarding the movies, his argument was more convincing and reliable.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 121, Rule ID: SHOULD_BE_DO[1]
Message: Did you mean 'considered'?
Suggestion: considered
...es therefore a greater budget should be consider for advertising to beware people of the...
^^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 230, Rule ID: AGREEMENT_SENT_START[1]
Message: You should probably use 'provide'.
Suggestion: provide
... and this would be helpful. The authors provides reasons to hold this opinion. While thi...
^^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 347, Rule ID: THERE_RE_MANY[3]
Message: Possible agreement error. Did you mean 'flaws'?
Suggestion: flaws
...lance, there are significant underlying flaw that raise doubt about the authors conc...
^^^^
Line 1, column 379, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...erlying flaw that raise doubt about the authors conclusion. First, the author unfair...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 226, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...tantiate the causality. This question is that whether the company has asked the ...
^^
Line 3, column 252, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...is question is that whether the company has asked the people to know what time i...
^^
Line 5, column 249, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ider that the reviewers totally consider technical criteria which is less importa...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, if, regarding, second, so, therefore, while, in addition
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 19.6327345309 87% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.9520958084 77% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 13.6137724551 95% => OK
Pronoun: 31.0 28.8173652695 108% => OK
Preposition: 37.0 55.5748502994 67% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 16.3942115768 98% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1957.0 2260.96107784 87% => OK
No of words: 377.0 441.139720559 85% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.19098143236 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.4064143971 4.56307096286 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.57835576294 2.78398813304 93% => OK
Unique words: 182.0 204.123752495 89% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.48275862069 0.468620217663 103% => OK
syllable_count: 614.7 705.55239521 87% => 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
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.70958083832 221% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 19.7664670659 91% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 57.7073555874 57.8364921388 100% => OK
Chars per sentence: 108.722222222 119.503703932 91% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.9444444444 23.324526521 90% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.5 5.70786347227 61% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 7.0 5.25449101796 133% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.20758483034 122% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 6.88822355289 44% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.240644770888 0.218282227539 110% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0681469276971 0.0743258471296 92% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0807772670534 0.0701772020484 115% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.135666509715 0.128457276422 106% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0480898135992 0.0628817314937 76% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.5 14.3799401198 94% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 48.3550499002 106% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.197005988 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.82 12.5979740519 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.9 8.32208582834 95% => OK
difficult_words: 78.0 98.500998004 79% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 12.3882235529 85% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => 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.