An argument has been made that viewers of Super-screen produced movies have decreased compared to any other years due to the lack of awareness by the public about quality of the movies. There are several gaps and unwarranted assumptions that makes this argument logically not sound, in term makes the recommendation doubtful.
The author of the memo specifies that the contents of the reviews are not reaching the prospective customers even though number of positive reviews has increased for some movies. This statement does not mention anything about the overall reviews. There can be few movies that have positive reviews when the majority have negative reviews that undermine the few positive reviews and decrease the overall rating of the movies produced by the company. Therefore, reviews of few movies is not a representative sample of all movie reviews, which weaken the authors' argument. If the marketing reports prove that the overall reviews for produced movies are positive, it will help the strenght of the argument.
Additionally, even there are positive reviews for all movies produced by Super Screen, it does not necessarily mean that number of viewers should increase. Some movies might be popular among slect, small crowds. In this scenario, movies will get good reviews than before without considerable increase in viewers.
Directors statement heavily depend on the marketing report statictics, but he does't not mention how reliable it is. There are many means of watching movies with modern technology, and with pirating movies. It is possible that produced movie viewers has increased but its not reflecting on the report.
In conclusion, author can strengthen his argument by following the above reccomendation
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: 14 15
No. of Words: 274 350
No. of Characters: 1434 1500
No. of Different Words: 143 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.069 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.234 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.656 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 118 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 89 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 61 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 30 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 19.571 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.442 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.357 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.374 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.64 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.098 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 553, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
... of all movie reviews, which weaken the authors argument. If the marketing reports prov...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 14, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...renght of the argument. Additionally, even there are positive reviews for all ...
^^
Line 7, column 127, Rule ID: MANY_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun means seems to be countable; consider using: 'many means'.
Suggestion: many means
...t mention how reliable it is. There are many means of watching movies with modern technolo...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, if, so, then, therefore, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 19.6327345309 56% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 12.9520958084 46% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 11.1786427146 45% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 10.0 13.6137724551 73% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 18.0 28.8173652695 62% => OK
Preposition: 32.0 55.5748502994 58% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 11.0 16.3942115768 67% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1474.0 2260.96107784 65% => OK
No of words: 273.0 441.139720559 62% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.39926739927 5.12650576532 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.06481385082 4.56307096286 89% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.72911226917 2.78398813304 98% => OK
Unique words: 146.0 204.123752495 72% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.534798534799 0.468620217663 114% => OK
syllable_count: 458.1 705.55239521 65% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 2.0 8.76447105788 23% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 19.7664670659 71% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 43.1218018631 57.8364921388 75% => OK
Chars per sentence: 105.285714286 119.503703932 88% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.5 23.324526521 84% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.07142857143 5.70786347227 54% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.88822355289 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.67664670659 64% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.159984926328 0.218282227539 73% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0592356021261 0.0743258471296 80% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.044381584632 0.0701772020484 63% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0917495993477 0.128457276422 71% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0228758351259 0.0628817314937 36% => 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: 13.8 14.3799401198 96% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 43.73 48.3550499002 90% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.04 12.5979740519 111% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.34 8.32208582834 100% => OK
difficult_words: 65.0 98.500998004 66% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => 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.