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 act

Essay topics:

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.

Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the recommendation and the argument on which it is based are reasonable. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the recommendation.

The passage suggests that more investments should be made for advertising Super Screen produced movies. As evidence, it has showed that the percentage of positive reviews has been increased, and so it has to be the lack of public awareness, not the quality of movies that is failing to attract viewers. Well, the research of the study cannot be disputed much, we might, however, question whether the study was representative enough to draw such broad conclusion. More research is needed to bolster the strength of this argument and to eliminate other possibilities like evaluating the quality of the movies and the biasedness of the reviewers.

The data presented lacks a depth of detail that would help us to evaluate the significance of the study results. How many people were surveyed? It just mentioned that the percentage of positive reviews has been increased but did not mention anything about what fraction is it of the total population. It also missed to mention the number of negative reviews. If 5 out of 100 people felt good about the movie where it was 4 out of 100 in the previous year, the figure is not surely statistically significant. The total number of participants is needed to know for determining the actual scenario that how many of them rated these movies as good and how many were dissatisfied.

Another leap in this argument is that it is confident about the quality of the movies while it does not shed any light about the means of their evaluation. Is the sound and picture quality good enough to be successfully shown in large screen? What about other features like animation and graphics? If they are not up to the mark, then people can easily find it unappealing by watching the trailer and will not eventually end up going to the theatre to watch that piece. So, without improving the quality of the movie, spending more on publicity alone will not entice viewers and the recommendation will be seriously weakened.

Further, there is no option to check the fact that the reviewers who gave positive reviews are unbiased and criticized it from a neutral ground. Also, it might be the case that they are the followers of super screen movies only and do not watch other categories of movies that much. In this case, it is not prudent to take a decision of investment solely depending upon the reaction of this pool of viewers.

While it may ultimately be the case that the proposition is sound and it will actually help to attract more viewers by allotting more budget on publicity, we cannot conclude this from the argument as it stands now. First, at a basic level, we need to know whether the existing data is statistically significant and sufficiently represented. There are other unexplored variables like verifying the non-partisan reviewers. The case can be also strengthened by evaluating the quality of the movies as it would help to determine whether the pursuit of the recommendation is worth funding.

Average: 2.9 (3 votes)
Essay Categories
Essays by the user:


Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 10, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
... the recommendation is worth funding.

Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, first, however, if, may, so, then, well, while, as to

Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments

Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 31.0 19.6327345309 158% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.9520958084 116% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 11.1786427146 116% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 13.6137724551 103% => OK
Pronoun: 42.0 28.8173652695 146% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 67.0 55.5748502994 121% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 16.3942115768 104% => OK

Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2455.0 2260.96107784 109% => OK
No of words: 502.0 441.139720559 114% => OK
Chars per words: 4.89043824701 5.12650576532 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.7334296765 4.56307096286 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.79170101302 2.78398813304 100% => OK
Unique words: 240.0 204.123752495 118% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.478087649402 0.468620217663 102% => OK
syllable_count: 772.2 705.55239521 109% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK

A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 4.96107784431 161% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.76447105788 68% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK

Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 19.7664670659 111% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 46.8378819983 57.8364921388 81% => OK
Chars per sentence: 111.590909091 119.503703932 93% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.8181818182 23.324526521 98% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.36363636364 5.70786347227 59% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 16.0 8.20758483034 195% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.88822355289 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.67664670659 43% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?

Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.224633766355 0.218282227539 103% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0605794461245 0.0743258471296 82% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0618918064265 0.0701772020484 88% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.125995386222 0.128457276422 98% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0563301285024 0.0628817314937 90% => OK

Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.0 14.3799401198 90% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 57.61 48.3550499002 119% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.197005988 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.38 12.5979740519 90% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.34 8.32208582834 100% => OK
difficult_words: 115.0 98.500998004 117% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 12.3882235529 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => 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.



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: 22 15
No. of Words: 502 350
No. of Characters: 2398 1500
No. of Different Words: 240 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.733 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.777 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.721 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 161 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 124 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 88 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 56 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.818 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.866 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.545 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.275 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.49 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.071 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5