"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 advertising director of the super screen movie production company concludes that if they allocate a greater share of their budget next year to reach the public through advertising, there will be more people to come and watch their movies. This conclusion distorts the view of the situation by manipulating the facts and by providing weak evidences. However careful scrutiny of the memo reveals that there is little credible support for the director's conclusion. Hence, this argument can be considered incomplete or unsubstantiable.
Firstly the director notes that, when compared to the previous year only fewer people attended the super screen produced movies than any other year. He believes this is happening because of a lack of proper advertising. This is merely an assumption without much of solid ground. If the director had provided evidences regarding the number of people actually attended the movies in the previos year and also the number of people usually attend their movies it would have been believable. Also if the people really admire their productions there is not much neccesity for extra marketing. It would have been more convincing to the reader if there is much more stronger evidence provided.
Second the author points out that, the percentage of positive reviews by movie reviewers about specific super screen movies actually increased during the past year. This again is a weak evidence provided as they have only reviewed only few specific movies of their production and not all of them. If the reviewers had reviewed all of their produced movies with positive ratings then the evidence would have been more convincing to the reader.
Finally the author readily assumes that, the problem lies not with the quality of their movies but with the public's lack of awareness that movies of good quality are available. This evidence raises several skeptical questions. First, the actual reason might be because the favourite artists of the audience are not anymore working with super screen productions. Next, there is a chance that more intresting pictures are in the theaters produced by other producers. As there are no evidences provided for the above possibilities, the reader cannot find it convincing.
In conclusion, the argument provided by the director is unpersuasive as it stands. To bolster it further, the director shoud have provided more strong evidences and deep analysis of the situation. Hence, to better evaluate the argument more proper evidences are required.
- "Over the past year, our late-night news program has devoted increasingly more time to covering national news and less time to covering weather and local news. During the same time period, most of the complaints we received from viewers were concerned wit 26
- "A nation should require all its students to study the same national curriculum until they enter college rather than allow schools in different parts of the nation to determine which academic courses to offer." 83
- To understand the most important characteristics of a society, one must study its major cities.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In deve 50
- "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 a 29
- The following appeared as part of a letter to the editor of a scientific journal."A recent study of eighteen rhesus monkeys provides clues as to the effects of birth order on an individual's levels of stimulation. The study showed that in stimulating situ 12
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 445, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'directors'' or 'director's'?
Suggestion: directors'; director's
...here is little credible support for the directors conclusion. Hence, this argument can be...
Line 3, column 488, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
...r movies it would have been believable. Also if the people really admire their produ...
Line 3, column 654, Rule ID: MOST_COMPARATIVE
Message: Use only 'stronger' (without 'more') when you use the comparative.
...nvincing to the reader if there is much more stronger evidence provided. Second the author...
Line 5, column 298, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT
Message: “If” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...f their production and not all of them. If the reviewers had reviewed all of their...
Line 7, column 1, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
... been more convincing to the reader. Finally the author readily assumes that, the pr...
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, finally, first, firstly, hence, however, if, really, regarding, second, so, then, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 19.6327345309 97% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 12.9520958084 54% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 11.1786427146 63% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 13.6137724551 59% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 29.0 28.8173652695 101% => OK
Preposition: 45.0 55.5748502994 81% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 16.3942115768 79% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2119.0 2260.96107784 94% => OK
No of words: 401.0 441.139720559 91% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.28428927681 5.12650576532 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.47492842339 4.56307096286 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.66128139092 2.78398813304 96% => OK
Unique words: 196.0 204.123752495 96% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.488778054863 0.468620217663 104% => OK
syllable_count: 667.8 705.55239521 95% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 19.7664670659 106% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 48.0950495046 57.8364921388 83% => OK
Chars per sentence: 100.904761905 119.503703932 84% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.0952380952 23.324526521 82% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.52380952381 5.70786347227 97% => 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 : 9.0 6.88822355289 131% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.67664670659 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.326825871974 0.218282227539 150% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0874730811165 0.0743258471296 118% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.138131390661 0.0701772020484 197% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.178198440765 0.128457276422 139% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.138230083071 0.0628817314937 220% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
automated_readability_index: 13.0 14.3799401198 90% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 43.73 48.3550499002 90% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.34 12.5979740519 106% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.44 8.32208582834 101% => OK
difficult_words: 98.0 98.500998004 99% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => 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.
argument 1 -- not OK
argument 2 -- not OK
argument 3 -- not exactly
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: ??? out of 6
Category: Poor Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 21 15
No. of Words: 401 350
No. of Characters: 2073 1500
No. of Different Words: 191 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.475 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.17 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.578 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 165 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 119 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 92 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 46 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 19.095 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.269 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.619 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.292 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.51 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.077 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5