The director claims that since there is a decline in the number of people attending Super Screen-produced movies in the last year despite of increasing percentage of positive reviews, Super Screen Movie production company must invest in advertising in order to make sure that the positive reviews reach a larger mass. This claim is based on a fallacious causality and is hence unconvincing. Stated in this way, the argument reveals poor reasoning and lead of failth. Also, the director fails to mention several key factors based on which it could be evaluated.
Firstly, the director claims that albeit the percentage of the positive reviews increased, there is a decline in the number of cinegoers. And, this proves that there is nothing wrong in quality of the movies. This claim is too weak to be convincing. The director takes into account percentages instead of real-time statistics. To illustrate, if there were one thousand people, who attended Super Screen-produced movies in the previous years and five-hundred people responded with a positive review, the percentage would be fifity percent. Whereas, if five-hundred cinegoers actually watch movies in the last year and four hundred and fifty people responds with a positive review, the percentage would come up to be ninety percent although the number of positive reviews are lesser this time. Hence, providing statistics in terms of percentage does not help to substantiate the argument that there is no problem with the quality of the movie.
Secondly, the director claims that they should invest in advertising which would make people aware of the good movies by Super Screen and hence appeal them to attend. However, it might be the case that the people are already cognizant about the reviews and they prefer watching it on digital platform. Nowadays, piracy has taken a huge toll on movie business and hence less number of people physically attend the movie shows. In this scenario, investing advertisement would be futile. What we need to know here is the reason why people actually stopped attending Super Screen movies.
Thirdly, the director fails to mention the form of reviews and where they are published. Also, the director plans to invest in advertising without describing any detail regarding the form of advertisement. For example, if the reviews are published in newspapers and the director is planning to invest in advertising in newspaper again, it might not be effective. The reason being, people have their own choices when it comes to daily lifestyle. People of that particular town probably prefer to check news online and not newspaper. Therefore, the director deciding to spend resources without considering these factors is unwarranted.
In conclusion, the argument is unsubstantiated and open to debate due to the above-mentioned flaws and lack of evidence. The director could have strengthened his argument to a greater extent if he could provide proofs for all his claims.
Essay evaluation report
flaws:
read the topic carefully:
'And yet the percentage of positive reviews by movie reviewers about specific Super Screen movies actually increased...', not for all movies.
-------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 23 15
No. of Words: 477 350
No. of Characters: 2435 1500
No. of Different Words: 228 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.673 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.105 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.751 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 189 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 133 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 94 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 57 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.739 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 11.804 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.696 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.291 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.495 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.085 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, first, firstly, hence, however, if, regarding, second, secondly, so, then, therefore, third, thirdly, whereas, for example, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 24.0 19.6327345309 122% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.9520958084 93% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 11.1786427146 116% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 13.6137724551 95% => OK
Pronoun: 29.0 28.8173652695 101% => OK
Preposition: 69.0 55.5748502994 124% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 16.3942115768 61% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2498.0 2260.96107784 110% => OK
No of words: 477.0 441.139720559 108% => OK
Chars per words: 5.23689727463 5.12650576532 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.67336384929 4.56307096286 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.83999388531 2.78398813304 102% => OK
Unique words: 233.0 204.123752495 114% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.488469601677 0.468620217663 104% => OK
syllable_count: 771.3 705.55239521 109% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Article: 14.0 8.76447105788 160% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 19.7664670659 121% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 62.4002398277 57.8364921388 108% => OK
Chars per sentence: 104.083333333 119.503703932 87% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.875 23.324526521 85% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.375 5.70786347227 112% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.67664670659 150% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.302289247539 0.218282227539 138% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0746614502055 0.0743258471296 100% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.105300840889 0.0701772020484 150% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.16470498067 0.128457276422 128% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.112661121389 0.0628817314937 179% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.2 14.3799401198 92% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 48.3550499002 108% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.197005988 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.11 12.5979740519 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.22 8.32208582834 99% => OK
difficult_words: 110.0 98.500998004 112% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.