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 author suggests that the reason for a fewer people attending the Super Screen produced movies is because of the lack of advertising which results in minimal people turning out to attend movie screening and claims that super screen should stress more on the adverstising part and reach out more to the general public. Though there are major gaps in this line of reasoning.
The report generated by the marketing department is only for the Super Screen produced movies . There is no discrete comparision shown between other production house with Super Screen produced movies. A more appropriate comparsion would have suggested the total number of people who turned up for any production house movie screening during the last 1 year. There is a possibility that the total no. of people going to screening for all the production houses might have decreased and hence the increasing the budget on advertising would just go in vain.
The next comparision is between the positive reviews of the last year with any past year. But even this is not discrete comparision , as the number of people going to the movie halls have decresased the percentage cannot be compared to the previous year percentage. Moreover there should be a comparision between the positive reviews of other production houses with the Super Screen produced movies. That would account for a more valuable comparision. If the positive reviews of Super screen production house is much more than its competitors then it can be inferred that the quality of movies are good and there is no issues with the content and so there is no point of allocating extra budgets for advertsing as the number of people going for any movie screening is less.
People nowdays prefer sitting at home and wait for the movie to air on there telivision sets as spending money of movie tickets is a burden for them. So the advertising must be reaching out to them but as they frugal and hence would prefer to watch it later on their personal TV sets. Hence, even in this case the extra budgets would just be a waste as it wont target any new prospective viewers.
So, the recommendation provided by the author is not appropraite to the argument and the marketing department should dig out some more relevent facts and data to come to a point of reasoning.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 5 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 9 2
No. of Sentences: 15 15
No. of Words: 394 350
No. of Characters: 1878 1500
No. of Different Words: 178 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.455 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.766 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.57 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 128 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 83 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 63 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 42 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 26.267 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 14.097 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.467 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.355 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.594 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.099 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 306, Rule ID: GENERAL_XX[1]
Message: Use simply 'public'.
Suggestion: public
...rstising part and reach out more to the general public. Though there are major gaps in this li...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 322, 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.
...d reach out more to the general public. Though there are major gaps in this line of re...
^^^^^^
Line 3, column 94, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Don't put a space before the full stop
Suggestion: .
...nly for the Super Screen produced movies . There is no discrete comparision shown ...
^^
Line 5, column 132, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma, but not before the comma
Suggestion: ,
...ut even this is not discrete comparision , as the number of people going to the mo...
^^
Line 5, column 267, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Moreover,
...mpared to the previous year percentage. Moreover there should be a comparision between t...
^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 609, Rule ID: THERE_S_MANY[4]
Message: Did you mean 'there are no issues'?
Suggestion: there are no issues
...that the quality of movies are good and there is no issues with the content and so there is no poi...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, hence, if, moreover, so, then
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 19.6327345309 97% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.9520958084 93% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 11.1786427146 98% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 13.6137724551 51% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 16.0 28.8173652695 56% => OK
Preposition: 50.0 55.5748502994 90% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 16.3942115768 55% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1915.0 2260.96107784 85% => OK
No of words: 394.0 441.139720559 89% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.86040609137 5.12650576532 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.45527027702 4.56307096286 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.60128345136 2.78398813304 93% => OK
Unique words: 179.0 204.123752495 88% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.454314720812 0.468620217663 97% => OK
syllable_count: 587.7 705.55239521 83% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 4.96107784431 20% => OK
Article: 5.0 8.76447105788 57% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.22255489022 24% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 19.7664670659 81% => 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: 24.0 22.8473053892 105% => OK
Sentence length SD: 79.5979889429 57.8364921388 138% => OK
Chars per sentence: 119.6875 119.503703932 100% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.625 23.324526521 106% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.125 5.70786347227 37% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 5.25449101796 114% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.20758483034 122% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.88822355289 73% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.67664670659 21% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.288914650558 0.218282227539 132% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.101725162003 0.0743258471296 137% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0965833462346 0.0701772020484 138% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.167025170761 0.128457276422 130% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0941691567986 0.0628817314937 150% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.8 14.3799401198 96% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 55.58 48.3550499002 115% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.197005988 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.2 12.5979740519 89% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.55 8.32208582834 91% => OK
difficult_words: 68.0 98.500998004 69% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.1389221557 104% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => 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.