The argument to be analyzed is as follows:
The following is taken from a memo from the advertising director of the Super Screen Movie Production Company.
“According to a recent report from 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 past year. Clearly, the contents of these reviews are not reaching enough of our prospective viewers. Thus, the problem lies not with the quality of our movies but with the public's lack of awareness that movies of good quality are available. Super Screen should therefore allocate a greater share 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 author of the memo avers that the Super Screen Movie Production Company has to invest in the publicity campaign to a large extent so that many viewers could be attracted by the movies produced by the company. The main reason for this argument is the report that mentions the increase of positive reviews regarding several Super Screen movies. However, the writer's main idea is based on logical fallacies and unwarranted assumptions when the scrutiny of his main supporting points is made.
To begin with, the specific data is not revealed in the cited report. Although the director states that the number of individuals who have watched Super Screen movies was the lowest in the previous year, the exact amount of difference is not mentioned. It is likely that the real gap between the previous year and any other year is not large. For instance, it is possible that the number of viewers in the past year was just 0.1% less than the second lowest amount. It should be also noted that the methods of the research do not appear in the report. It is probable that the scope of targeted groups is narrow because of the limited approaches. For example, the number of viewers who have downloaded movies through the internet might be omitted in the survey.
Furthermore, whereas the author claims that the quality of Super Screen films is impeccable while they do not reach the public sufficiently. However, the assumed increase in positive reviews cannot validate this argument. Firstly, the exact figure of the risen percentage of positive reviews is not mentioned. It is likely that the increased amount is just one or two percent and in that case, this result cannot be presented as proof of the improved quality of movies. In addition, although we suppose that the percentage is high enough, it should be indicated that only specific movies got positive reviews. It is highly probable that the majority of the films made by Super Screen cannot be considered good pieces. Therefore, without the examination of the detailed contents of the aforementioned reviews, it is not reasonable to conclude that the movies of Super Screen have good quality in general.
Besides, although it turns out that the average quality of those movies is high, it is still questionable if the quality can be the only decisive factor to attract movie viewers. In many cases, ordinary viewers are inclined to specific genres they prefer or large-scale movies with stunning visual effects. Even though their average quality is not considered high by most critics, the general public's taste does not always match with them. In contrast, even some masterpieces cannot satisfy the public when they are too long and complicated. Given this fact, it is doubtful if advertisements can result in more viewers even though the quality of movies is evidently good enough.
In conclusion, the main idea of the director is not cogent unless he adds more concrete evidence and reliable data. The quality of the movies should be carefully investigated by diverse methods and it should also be questioned if the quality itself can be the only important motive for the majority of viewers.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 4 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 3 2
No. of Sentences: 24 15
No. of Words: 529 350
No. of Characters: 2576 1500
No. of Different Words: 239 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.796 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.87 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.495 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 211 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 140 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 88 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 39 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.042 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.611 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.75 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.309 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.509 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.097 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
The author of the memo avers that the Su...
^^^^^
Line 2, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...of his main supporting points is made. To begin with, the specific data is not ...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ternet might be omitted in the survey. Furthermore, whereas the author claims t...
^^^^^
Line 4, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...r Screen have good quality in general. Besides, although it turns out that the ...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ty of movies is evidently good enough. In conclusion, the main idea of the dire...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, besides, first, firstly, furthermore, however, if, regarding, second, so, still, therefore, whereas, while, as to, even so, for example, for instance, in addition, in conclusion, in contrast, in general, in many cases, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 37.0 19.6327345309 188% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.9520958084 100% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 11.1786427146 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 20.0 13.6137724551 147% => OK
Pronoun: 42.0 28.8173652695 146% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 59.0 55.5748502994 106% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 16.3942115768 49% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2627.0 2260.96107784 116% => OK
No of words: 529.0 441.139720559 120% => OK
Chars per words: 4.96597353497 5.12650576532 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.79583152331 4.56307096286 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.5695328907 2.78398813304 92% => OK
Unique words: 246.0 204.123752495 121% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.465028355388 0.468620217663 99% => OK
syllable_count: 830.7 705.55239521 118% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 11.0 4.96107784431 222% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 19.7664670659 121% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 38.3065123561 57.8364921388 66% => OK
Chars per sentence: 109.458333333 119.503703932 92% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.0416666667 23.324526521 94% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.91666666667 5.70786347227 174% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 5.25449101796 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 17.0 8.20758483034 207% => Less positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 6.88822355289 44% => 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: 0.158437884656 0.218282227539 73% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0454655003521 0.0743258471296 61% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0376264586766 0.0701772020484 54% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.093399916458 0.128457276422 73% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0344539220252 0.0628817314937 55% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.0 14.3799401198 90% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 48.3550499002 102% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.55 12.5979740519 92% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.58 8.32208582834 103% => OK
difficult_words: 129.0 98.500998004 131% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 12.3882235529 85% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.