arguement topic
In this arguement, advertising director of super screen production movie says that despite movies rated as good by critics, few people came to watch movie compared to other years. He further says that maybe people were not aware about these good movies, so in order to do more advertizing about upcoming movies in futue, budget for advertizing should be increased. However I think that directors's statement is flawed and there are may loopholes in it. He has not considered other possibilities for why other people did not watch movies.
Firstly, maybe people knew about the movies but the qualility and content was not at per, despite having a strong star cast. So people who watched this film would have told their friends, or to people where they work and family members to not watch this movie. And this mouth publicity caused harm to movie. There can also be a posibility that cast was completely new and people were not intrested to see them. Other posibility can be that topic of film was controversial or can be considered as a taboo in that country, so few people went to watch movie.
Furthermore, he says that percentage of positive reviews increased compared to last year. It is a very vague statement, it is a possibility that last year 100 reviewers rated the movie and 56 rated it as good, so positive review percentage is 56%. In this year maybe only 5 reviewers reviewed the movie, and 3 wrote positive reviews, and that percentage comes to be 60%. Although 60 is greater than 56, number of reviewers were less, so it can not be generalized. Also there might be a possibility that company have given money to reviwers to write good reviews about movie.
Lastly he says that more fund should be allocated to advertizement in order to spread awareness about the movie. But I think if content and quality of movie is poor people will not watch it, despite more advertizement, and company's money will go waste.
Instead they should do a detailed study about why people are not coming to watch their movies, and try to improve on that areas, and spend more money on that areas, instead of allocating them to advertizments.It will be a more wise thing to do.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 98, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...roduction movie says that despite movies rated as good by critics, few people cam...
^^
Line 2, column 2, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: However,
... for advertizing should be increased. However I think that directorss statement is fl...
^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 464, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Also,
...ere less, so it can not be generalized. Also there might be a possibility that compa...
^^^^
Line 6, column 1, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Instead,
...nt, and companys money will go waste. Instead they should do a detailed study about w...
^^^^^^^
Line 6, column 210, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: It
...ead of allocating them to advertizments.It will be a more wise thing to do.
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, furthermore, however, if, lastly, may, so, i think
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 23.0 19.6327345309 117% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.9520958084 100% => OK
Conjunction : 16.0 11.1786427146 143% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 13.6137724551 110% => OK
Pronoun: 38.0 28.8173652695 132% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 44.0 55.5748502994 79% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 16.3942115768 37% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1796.0 2260.96107784 79% => OK
No of words: 380.0 441.139720559 86% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.72631578947 5.12650576532 92% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.41515443553 4.56307096286 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.60556085487 2.78398813304 94% => OK
Unique words: 186.0 204.123752495 91% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.489473684211 0.468620217663 104% => OK
syllable_count: 566.1 705.55239521 80% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 0.0 8.76447105788 0% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 8.0 1.67365269461 478% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 19.7664670659 86% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 45.421059701 57.8364921388 79% => OK
Chars per sentence: 105.647058824 119.503703932 88% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.3529411765 23.324526521 96% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.52941176471 5.70786347227 79% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 5.25449101796 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.88822355289 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.67664670659 86% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.033634144215 0.218282227539 15% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0097410486037 0.0743258471296 13% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0267148967461 0.0701772020484 38% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0140666598545 0.128457276422 11% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0203320392435 0.0628817314937 32% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.0 14.3799401198 83% => 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: 10.45 12.5979740519 83% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.47 8.32208582834 90% => OK
difficult_words: 66.0 98.500998004 67% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 16.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.