Argument Topic: "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 advertising director of the Super Screen Movie Production Company decides to advertise their movies more aggresively, under the analysis that the increment of good reviews about some of their movies is increased, so the quality of their movies is not a problem. However, their analysis is based on unproved hypotheses: first, they inadequately assume some reviewed movies represent all of their movies. Second, they presume good reviews truly represents the whole viewers, Third, they could misinterpret the meaning of the increment of percentage: the percentage could be still low even if it increases, and the percentage does not reflect a possible decrement of the number of viewers.
Firstly, good reviews about specific movies of Super Screen does not mean every movie published by Super Screen is of good quality. The possiblity that Super Screen makes a few masterpieces and a plenty of poor movies is opened. Therefore, we have to investigate the reviewed movies can represent the whole movies made by Super Screen. If the hypothesis is correct, we could conclude movies by the company is in good quality. If not, we can say nothing about the quality of Super Screen-produced movies.
Secondly, we have to investigate reviewers who give good reviews truely represent the whole perspective viewers. It is possible that they provides good reviews just because they are big fans for Super Screen movies. If viewers with good reviews really represente the whole viewers, we can conclude the quality of the reviewed movies nice. If not, however, we cannot conclude anything about the quality.
Thirdly, the increment of percentage of good reviews also could not mean the reviewed movies is of nice quality. Imagine movies of the company recieved a 1% of good review during the past year and receives 2% of good reviewes during this year. The percentage of good reviewes is increased, but can we say that the movie is good quality? There are still 98% of neutral or bad reviews about their movies, so we cannot easily conclude the quality of their movies improved. Moreover, the percentage is susceptible for the number of whole reviewers: if the number of super fans, who will give strongly nice reviews, is constant and the number of other ordinaty viewers is decreased, then the percentage of positive reviews of the movie will be increased. However, in this case, the increment does not represent the increased popularity of their movies.
We reviewed the unproved hypotheses in the director's decision. If he or she could not verify the hypotheses, he or she could make wrong conclusion, which results in inaffective use of budget and effort.
Comments
e-rater score 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: 20 15
No. of Words: 435 350
No. of Characters: 2162 1500
No. of Different Words: 167 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.567 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.97 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.616 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 167 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 124 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 80 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 49 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.75 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.444 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.8 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.398 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.58 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.223 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 139, Rule ID: NON3PRS_VERB[2]
Message: The pronoun 'they' must be used with a non-third-person form of a verb: 'provide'
Suggestion: provide
...ctive viewers. It is possible that they provides good reviews just because they are big ...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, however, if, moreover, really, second, secondly, so, still, then, therefore, third, thirdly
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 19.6327345309 92% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.9520958084 108% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 13.6137724551 51% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 34.0 28.8173652695 118% => OK
Preposition: 51.0 55.5748502994 92% => 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: 2222.0 2260.96107784 98% => OK
No of words: 435.0 441.139720559 99% => OK
Chars per words: 5.10804597701 5.12650576532 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.56690854021 4.56307096286 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.71119579516 2.78398813304 97% => OK
Unique words: 177.0 204.123752495 87% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.406896551724 0.468620217663 87% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 702.9 705.55239521 100% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 13.0 4.96107784431 262% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 6.0 8.76447105788 68% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 19.7664670659 101% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 64.5534468483 57.8364921388 112% => OK
Chars per sentence: 111.1 119.503703932 93% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.75 23.324526521 93% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.9 5.70786347227 103% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 15.0 8.20758483034 183% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 6.88822355289 44% => 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: 0.183712734928 0.218282227539 84% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0787989176994 0.0743258471296 106% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0776624719298 0.0701772020484 111% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.118693412762 0.128457276422 92% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0908119416511 0.0628817314937 144% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.5 14.3799401198 94% => 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: 12.36 12.5979740519 98% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.94 8.32208582834 95% => OK
difficult_words: 90.0 98.500998004 91% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 19.0 12.3882235529 153% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => 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.