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.
In the given memo, the director of the Super Screen Movie Production Company recommends that the company should allocate a greater share of its budget next year in advertising to reach out public as fewer people attended Super Screen produced movies in last year. However, the suppoting arguments provided by the director are indefensible and requires more concrete evidence before taking any significant decisions.
The director mentioned that the percentage of positive reviews by movie reviewer about specific Super Screen Movies actually increased during the past year. However, the director ignored that the increse in the percentage of positive reviews are the result of fewer total number of viewers. Also, he mentioned that "specific" movies got positive reviews.The questions raise here are that how many movies got positive reviews and in total how many moviews have been produced by Super Screen? What if only two or three movies got positive reviews among ten? Therefore, to make this argument valid the director must provide the evidence to support his argument.
Another main conjecture is that the contents of reviewers are not reaching enough to prospective viewers. The director didn't provide any solid support for this statement. What if marketing team has done enough to reach out to their prospective viewers and yet the viewers didn't attend their movies. Therefore, the author must study and analyze that whether the content actually didn't reach their viewers or there are other issues hidden behind.
The director added a reference of the report-provided by the marketing department to show that the fewer people have attended their movie's in past year than any other year. However, the director made assumption that the awareness among people is the main reason behind the attendance of fewer people. Though, it could not be true. The interest of the viewers could be diffrent then the Super Screen Movie in past year. Therefore, the author must dig deeper and investigate the actual reason behind fewer attendees rather than making pointless assumption.
The author of the argument must provide the actual statistics which can bolster his argument. Also, he needs to study and investigate what kind of movies release in past years and what kind content their prospective viewers are expecting from Super Screen Movie. Without knowing above information, the author may invest wrongly in advertising and would loss more viewers as well as its budget.
In sum, the argument in the memo, is incomplete in nature and do not seem convincing at all. Thus, the speaker must provide valid probe to support his recommendation. The director requries to revised the given memo and provide organized argument which bears warranted evidences rather making unreasonable assumptions.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 22 15
No. of Words: 447 350
No. of Characters: 2306 1500
No. of Different Words: 202 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.598 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.159 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.526 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 181 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 131 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 88 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 48 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.318 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.053 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.636 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.316 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.565 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.098 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 6 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 365, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: The
...cific' movies got positive reviews.The questions raise here are that how many ...
^^^
Line 5, column 120, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: didn't
...gh to prospective viewers. The director didnt provide any solid support for this stat...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 273, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: didn't
...prospective viewers and yet the viewers didnt attend their movies. Therefore, the aut...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 379, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: didn't
...alyze that whether the content actually didnt reach their viewers or there are other ...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 302, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “Though” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
... behind the attendance of fewer people. Though, it could not be true. The interest of ...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, however, if, may, so, then, therefore, thus, well, kind of, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 19.6327345309 61% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.9520958084 85% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 11.1786427146 116% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 28.8173652695 83% => OK
Preposition: 56.0 55.5748502994 101% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 16.3942115768 104% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2374.0 2260.96107784 105% => OK
No of words: 443.0 441.139720559 100% => OK
Chars per words: 5.35891647856 5.12650576532 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.58776254615 4.56307096286 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.66631271356 2.78398813304 96% => OK
Unique words: 207.0 204.123752495 101% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.467268623025 0.468620217663 100% => OK
syllable_count: 740.7 705.55239521 105% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 16.0 8.76447105788 183% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.70958083832 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 19.7664670659 111% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 50.8279588903 57.8364921388 88% => OK
Chars per sentence: 107.909090909 119.503703932 90% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.1363636364 23.324526521 86% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.90909090909 5.70786347227 68% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 5.25449101796 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.20758483034 134% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => OK
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: 0.359643147212 0.218282227539 165% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0931036341375 0.0743258471296 125% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.10689163452 0.0701772020484 152% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.180774318887 0.128457276422 141% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.112204508839 0.0628817314937 178% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.9 14.3799401198 97% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 42.72 48.3550499002 88% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.197005988 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.81 12.5979740519 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.26 8.32208582834 99% => OK
difficult_words: 102.0 98.500998004 104% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 12.3882235529 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => 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.