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."
The argument that Super Screen should allocate a greater share of its budget next year to reaching the public through advertisement is not entirely logically convincing as it raised some questions that needs to be answered.
Firstly, the argument assumed that the content of their review are not reaching enough of their prospective viewers, this assumption seems recondite as it contradicted the claim that there is a higher percentage of positive reviews by movie reviewers. The question is, how is it possible to give a positive review to what you have not viewed?
Similarly, The argument rely on the report given by the marketing department. This raises some question, why is it that the claim only depends on the department? Is there no any other prove to back it up such as a surveillance in the movie room in order to comfirm if the number reported is correct because of the descrepancy in the viewer to reviewers' ratio. There is high possibility that the staff in that department are engaged in extortion of the company' money's.
Also, the argument never address the extent of their movie quality as claimed to not have problem. People tends to spend their last money on quality things. If truely the movie is of good quality, i don't see any reason for spending that much on advertisement, since it was claimed that they have increase in the positive review. People that see quality in the movie they reviewed will definitely find a way to where the quality things is being made and even informed their friend. I think the quality of the movie will advertise the movie rather than allocating a greater share of budgets to advertisement.
Thus, the argument does not complete justified the reason why greater share of budget should be spend on advertisement. Ultimately, the argument might have been strengthened if the questions raised above is answered.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 8 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 5 2
No. of Sentences: 14 15
No. of Words: 316 350
No. of Characters: 1521 1500
No. of Different Words: 162 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.216 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.813 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.651 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 109 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 81 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 54 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 30 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.571 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.582 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.571 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.343 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.618 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.091 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 167, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[1]
Message: The verb 'will' requires the base form of the verb: 'make'
Suggestion: make
...e common notation that cooperation will makes us achieve a better outcome, I believed...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 31, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[1]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'a competitor' or simply 'competitors'?
Suggestion: a competitor; competitors
...ation. Firstly, seeing themselves as a competitors would make them giving out their potent...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 278, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: If
...ke up any responsibiliy assign to them. if they are working with cooperation, some...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, firstly, if, may, so, still
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 19.5258426966 41% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.4196629213 105% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 14.8657303371 27% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 8.0 11.3162921348 71% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 37.0 33.0505617978 112% => OK
Preposition: 42.0 58.6224719101 72% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 12.9106741573 93% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1251.0 2235.4752809 56% => More number of characters wanted.
No of words: 250.0 442.535393258 56% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.004 5.05705443957 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.97635364384 4.55969084622 87% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.99099715814 2.79657885939 107% => OK
Unique words: 131.0 215.323595506 61% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.524 0.4932671777 106% => OK
syllable_count: 393.3 704.065955056 56% => syllable counts are too short.
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 6.24550561798 96% => OK
Article: 0.0 4.99550561798 0% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 3.10617977528 129% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.38483146067 68% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 9.0 20.2370786517 44% => 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: 27.0 23.0359550562 117% => OK
Sentence length SD: 54.0721968218 60.3974514979 90% => OK
Chars per sentence: 139.0 118.986275619 117% => OK
Words per sentence: 27.7777777778 23.4991977007 118% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.44444444444 5.21951772744 85% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 7.80617977528 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 10.2758426966 68% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 0.0 5.13820224719 0% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.83258426966 41% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.220667426588 0.243740707755 91% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.10934421716 0.0831039109588 132% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0989080821186 0.0758088955206 130% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.159217532691 0.150359130593 106% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0982923328998 0.0667264976115 147% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.0 14.1392134831 113% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 44.07 48.8420337079 90% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 12.1743820225 113% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.02 12.1639044944 99% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.39 8.38706741573 100% => OK
difficult_words: 54.0 100.480337079 54% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 11.8971910112 122% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.8 11.2143820225 114% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.7820224719 110% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Better to have 5/6 paragraphs with 3/4 arguments. And try always support/against one side but compare two sides, like this:
para 1: introduction
para 2: reason 1. address both of the views presented for reason 1
para 3: reason 2. address both of the views presented for reason 2
para 4: reason 3. address both of the views presented for reason 3
para 5: reason 4. address both of the views presented for reason 4 (optional)
para 6: conclusion.
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.