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 premise states that in stead of increased positive reviews on the super screen-produced movies, fewer people were reported to attended these movies in the past year than in any other year. So the statement concludes that, the quality of the movies does not lack, rather the dearth of knowledge of the viewers on the good quality movies is responsible for such situation. Though the claim looks logically pertinent, but to evaluate this three questions need to be answered.
Firstly, the authenticity of the positive reviews need to be brought in question. The positive reviews may be biased or corrupted. It is highly possible that the reviewers were bribed to produce positive reviews about the movies on purpose although the quality of the movies are not truly up to the mark. If such is the case it is likely to have fewer audiences for the super screen-produces movies. Again, it is possible that the reviewers are not good critique of movies. The premise does not clarify if callow reviewers are writing positive reviews to get attention of public or the reviewers genuinely possess good insights of judgement. To evaluate the argument this fallacy need to be clarified.
Secondly, it is not cleared about the source of the recent report. It may be possible that people are actually attending to watch the super screen-produced movies, but the report based on the survey was performed on the weekday or on a day when it is less likely to have audiences in general. Another possible way is that, the survey was performed only in a certain area where people are not willing to watch much movies. The clarification about the source of the report is essential for evaluating the argument properly.
Lastly, the premise states that, positive reviews about specific movies increased during the past year. If these specific movies are few in number, and on the other hand a huge number of movies lack in quality, percentage of attendance of the movies may decrease as a whole. The passage does not say anything about the other movies which do not have positive reviews, or amount of people attending in either type of movies.
If the above stated questions are answered and proper evidences are shown, the argument can be evaluated with proper considerations.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
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: 18 15
No. of Words: 381 350
No. of Characters: 1844 1500
No. of Different Words: 162 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.418 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.84 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.619 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 148 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 99 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 69 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 38 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.167 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.155 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.611 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.35 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.566 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.103 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 25, Rule ID: IN_STEAD_OF[1]
Message: Did you mean 'instead of'?
Suggestion: instead of
The premise states that in stead of increased positive reviews on the super...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 195, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...hat the reviewers were bribed to produce positive reviews about the movies on pur...
^^
Line 9, column 410, Rule ID: MUCH_COUNTABLE[1]
Message: Use 'many' with countable nouns.
Suggestion: many
...a where people are not willing to watch much movies. The clarification about the sou...
^^^^
Line 13, column 135, Rule ID: ADJECTIVE_IN_ATTRIBUTE[1]
Message: A more concise phrase may lose no meaning and sound more powerful.
Suggestion: few
...ast year. If these specific movies are few in number, and on the other hand a huge number of...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 13, column 135, Rule ID: FEW_IN_NUMBER[1]
Message: Use simply 'few'.
Suggestion: few
...ast year. If these specific movies are few in number, and on the other hand a huge number of...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 13, column 426, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ple attending in either type of movies. If the above stated questions are answe...
^^^^^^^
Line 17, column 3, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ding in either type of movies. If the above stated questions are answered ...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, but, first, firstly, if, lastly, look, may, second, secondly, so, then, in general, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 27.0 19.6327345309 138% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 12.9520958084 54% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 11.1786427146 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 13.6137724551 73% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 17.0 28.8173652695 59% => OK
Preposition: 56.0 55.5748502994 101% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 16.3942115768 61% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1901.0 2260.96107784 84% => OK
No of words: 381.0 441.139720559 86% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.98950131234 5.12650576532 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.41805628031 4.56307096286 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.68950631988 2.78398813304 97% => OK
Unique words: 168.0 204.123752495 82% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.44094488189 0.468620217663 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 605.7 705.55239521 86% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.67365269461 239% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 1.0 4.22255489022 24% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 19.7664670659 91% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 50.2860950763 57.8364921388 87% => OK
Chars per sentence: 105.611111111 119.503703932 88% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.1666666667 23.324526521 91% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.16666666667 5.70786347227 108% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 7.0 5.25449101796 133% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.20758483034 134% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.67664670659 21% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.150261535222 0.218282227539 69% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0548458818994 0.0743258471296 74% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0412056746298 0.0701772020484 59% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0902903545931 0.128457276422 70% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0348347852959 0.0628817314937 55% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.7 14.3799401198 88% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 48.3550499002 104% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.197005988 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.66 12.5979740519 93% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.99 8.32208582834 96% => OK
difficult_words: 80.0 98.500998004 81% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.