In the preceding argument, the director from the Super Screen Movie Production Company claims that the reason why fewer people attended their movies last year is that people are not aware of the existence of good movies from the company, instead of the content of their movies are not good. Thus the director asserts more investment should be added to advertising in the next year. This argument may sound appealing at first glance. However, upon careful scrutiny, it is rife with flaws and premises.
To begin with, the advertising director asserts that fewer people attended the company's movie in the last year was not because of the movies' content are not good, for the number of positive reviews on some of the movies produced last year actually rose. However, we don't know the average level of quality of all the movies produced. It is possible that some of the movies were of good quality and attracted more audiences, but others were not good enough, thus the number of viewers as a whole decreased in the past year. To strengthen his or her argument, a more detailed statistical analysis on each of the movie is needed.
Additionally, the director doesn't compare the quality of content of their movies with the ones from other companies. We know the movie industry is quite competitive. It may be true that the Super Screen's movies have better contents compared to its previous works and received more positive reviews, but if other rival companies produced even better movies, then people will be attracted to those movies. What's more, content is just one aspect to assess a movie, and other factors such as visionary effects, music play an even more important role. Thus, the company should carry out a more comprehensive analysis to assess their movies before making a judgment.
Last but not least, building upon the implications that movies produced by the Super Screen are not reaching the audiences, the director suggests increasing budget in advertising in the next year. However, increasing investment in advertising means less money can be used to produce movies. Although more people will be attracted to watch their movies in the next year, but the quality of movies would decrease because of lack of investment, so it is unlikely that the number of viewers will be significantly higher.
Due to aforementioned evidence, although advertising may promote the popularity of movies from the Super Screen, a deeper and more detailed investigation should be carried out to make sure why there were fewer viewers the last year. Only then can the company come up with an efficient solution to its problem.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 292, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
...e content of their movies are not good. Thus the director asserts more investment sh...
^^^^
Line 3, column 202, Rule ID: SOME_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'some'.
Suggestion: some
..., for the number of positive reviews on some of the movies produced last year actually rose...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 267, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
...ed last year actually rose. However, we dont know the average level of quality of al...
^^^^
Line 3, column 354, Rule ID: SOME_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'some'.
Suggestion: some
...he movies produced. It is possible that some of the movies were of good quality and attract...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 28, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
... needed. Additionally, the director doesnt compare the quality of content of their...
^^^^^^
Line 5, column 405, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: What's
...ople will be attracted to those movies. Whats more, content is just one aspect to ass...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, but, first, however, if, may, so, then, thus, such as, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 19.6327345309 112% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.9520958084 93% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 13.6137724551 51% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 24.0 28.8173652695 83% => OK
Preposition: 59.0 55.5748502994 106% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 16.3942115768 73% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2195.0 2260.96107784 97% => OK
No of words: 438.0 441.139720559 99% => OK
Chars per words: 5.01141552511 5.12650576532 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.57476223824 4.56307096286 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.57074077204 2.78398813304 92% => OK
Unique words: 202.0 204.123752495 99% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.461187214612 0.468620217663 98% => OK
syllable_count: 687.6 705.55239521 97% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.471057884232 0% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.67365269461 239% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 19.7664670659 91% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 22.8473053892 105% => OK
Sentence length SD: 75.5342494469 57.8364921388 131% => OK
Chars per sentence: 121.944444444 119.503703932 102% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.3333333333 23.324526521 104% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.33333333333 5.70786347227 76% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 5.25449101796 114% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.20758483034 134% => OK
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: 0.257565790381 0.218282227539 118% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0826874603571 0.0743258471296 111% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0881804273397 0.0701772020484 126% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.171538172736 0.128457276422 134% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0696341488598 0.0628817314937 111% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.3 14.3799401198 99% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 47.12 48.3550499002 97% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 12.197005988 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.07 12.5979740519 96% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.93 8.32208582834 95% => OK
difficult_words: 86.0 98.500998004 87% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 12.3882235529 85% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.1389221557 104% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 Out of 6 -- The score is based on the average performance of 20,000 argument essays. This e-grader is not smart enough to check on arguments.
---------------------
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.