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 Super Screen Movie Production Company has put forward an opinion of increasing the budget for advertising their movie reviews the next year. He came to this conclusion owing to the recent report that stated that only a few people attended their movies the previous year compared to any other year despite getting more positive reviews in the that year. Before this recommendation can be put into play, few questions have to be answered.
Firstly, How many people actually participated in the survey whose report details are mentioned in the paragraph? Is it across the globe or only in that particular country where the director resides? This data is lacking in the paragraph given. If the report is generated with the views of only the people of a particular country, then arguing that the viewership has reduced is futile. As the Super Screen Movie company releases movies in different parts of the world and in different languages, considering eveyone's opinion is highly mandatory. May be, only the last year, from that particular country people have not watched their many movies due to the ongoing pandemic or many other reasons. The clarity on these points is missing.
Secondly, the director claims that the percent of postive reviews on particular superscreen movies has increased the previous year. He uses the word 'specific' which lands us in doubt. What genre of movies have got increasing positive reviews that the director is mentioning? Is it the same genre that people had not gone to watch. There is no substantial evidence for this. What if the reviews are for one movie and the survey report was of another movie? The paragraph lacks thorough information regarding this.
Thirdly, are the reviews genuine? Is there any proof that they aren't manupulated by paying the reviewers their share to write only the positive reviews? The paragraph does not answer to this question. If their movies were actually bad and if the reviewers have manupulated them to be good, people might have gone to watch the movie. But because of the bad content, they would have obviously recommended their fellow peers to not watch that particular movie which in turn reduces the viewership. This is basically termed as 'word of mouth' advertising which sometimes proves to be more powerful than the tranditional advertisements on TV or Newspaper.
In conclusion, the argument, as it stands now, is flawed due to lack of evident reasons and deep information. If the director is able to answer the above questions, then the viablity of increasing the bidget for advertising can be evaluated properly.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 9 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 8 2
No. of Sentences: 25 15
No. of Words: 434 350
No. of Characters: 2143 1500
No. of Different Words: 209 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.564 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.938 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.616 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 154 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 116 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 78 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 52 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 17.36 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.034 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.44 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.26 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.45 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.045 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 64, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: aren't
...s genuine? Is there any proof that they arent manupulated by paying the reviewers the...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, but, first, firstly, if, may, regarding, second, secondly, so, then, third, thirdly, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 24.0 19.6327345309 122% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 12.9520958084 39% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 11.1786427146 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 13.6137724551 118% => OK
Pronoun: 34.0 28.8173652695 118% => OK
Preposition: 49.0 55.5748502994 88% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 16.3942115768 43% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2197.0 2260.96107784 97% => OK
No of words: 433.0 441.139720559 98% => OK
Chars per words: 5.07390300231 5.12650576532 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.56165014514 4.56307096286 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.67975420953 2.78398813304 96% => OK
Unique words: 212.0 204.123752495 104% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.4896073903 0.468620217663 104% => OK
syllable_count: 682.2 705.55239521 97% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.76447105788 68% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.70958083832 221% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 25.0 19.7664670659 126% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 22.8473053892 74% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 48.8966910946 57.8364921388 85% => OK
Chars per sentence: 87.88 119.503703932 74% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.32 23.324526521 74% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.32 5.70786347227 76% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 10.0 4.67664670659 214% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.232369158783 0.218282227539 106% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0565480097795 0.0743258471296 76% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0708480365715 0.0701772020484 101% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.130655910243 0.128457276422 102% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0756294357342 0.0628817314937 120% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.1 14.3799401198 77% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 54.22 48.3550499002 112% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 12.197005988 81% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.83 12.5979740519 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.98 8.32208582834 96% => OK
difficult_words: 96.0 98.500998004 97% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 11.1389221557 79% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.