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 advertising director of the company plans to allocate a greater share of its budget to advertising in the coming year to aware people about their movies. The director arrives at the stated plan relying on the increased percentage of positive reviews received by the company's movies even though there was a decrease in the people who attended the Super Screen-produced movies. The recommendation of the director might turn out to be lucrative; however, it hinges on unfounded assumptions, if not substantiated, will undermine the persuasiveness of the argument. Therefore, more questions need to be answered so as to evaluate the presented recommendation.
Firstly, even though the presented fact that there was increase in the positive reviews percentage cannot be disputed, it must be accepted as true, it is questionable whether the positive reviews represented the general response of the viewers. For example, people giving reviews might have been provided with free food and might have been indirectly encouraged for the positive reviews. So, did the mere increase in positive reviews imply that there was no problem in the quality of their movies? The director leaps towards not considering his or her quality of movies just because of the reviews.Therefore, it is necessary to provide peices of evidence which show that the recorded percentage of positive reviews represented the general opinion of the viewers and assured good quality of the movies.
Secondly, there are no pieces of evidence which support the statement that the public lacked knowledge about their movies. Are the public already well-informed about the positive reviews and the presence of their movies? For example, it is possible that the company had publicized just so much that the viewers were vexed and wanted to avoid the movies of the company. In such scenario, how can it be justified that increasing the budget for advertising will be beneficial?
Lastly, the director considers the lack of awareness of the public to be the main reason for the decrease number of people attending the movies. Are there movies of any other companies that people might be attracted towards? Or are the public opting for other forms of entertaintment? For instance, people might be prefering to watch series different from movies. In such scenario, even with the allocation of greater share of budget the company will no be able to bring back it's viewers. Therefore, such different probable factors that might be a prime cause of the presented problem should be analysed because leaping directly towards the advertising factor.
In conclusion, the argument must answers numerous questions like whether the positive reviews of the viewers were reliable and representative, whether adverstiment was already adequate or not, whether the lack of advertisement was the main cause for the decrease in the number of people. Therefore, more extensive and multifaceted researches must be carried out before considering that lack of awareness about the movie was the prime reason for the problem.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 20 15
No. of Words: 492 350
No. of Characters: 2540 1500
No. of Different Words: 206 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.71 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.163 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.787 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 205 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 158 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 104 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 60 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 24.6 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.356 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.65 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.329 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.329 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.094 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 631, Rule ID: SO_AS_TO[1]
Message: Use simply 'to'
Suggestion: to
...ore, more questions need to be answered so as to evaluate the presented recommendation. ...
^^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 81, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'reviews'' or 'review's'?
Suggestion: reviews'; review's
...that there was increase in the positive reviews percentage cannot be disputed, it must ...
^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 599, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: Therefore
...y of movies just because of the reviews.Therefore, it is necessary to provide peices of e...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 475, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...get for advertising will be beneficial? Lastly, the director considers the lack ...
^^^^
Line 4, column 452, Rule ID: NOW[3]
Message: Did you mean 'now' (=at this moment) instead of 'no' (negation)?
Suggestion: now
...reater share of budget the company will no be able to bring back its viewers. Ther...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, firstly, however, if, lastly, second, secondly, so, therefore, well, as to, for example, for instance, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 30.0 19.6327345309 153% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 16.0 12.9520958084 124% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 13.6137724551 95% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 28.8173652695 83% => OK
Preposition: 66.0 55.5748502994 119% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 16.3942115768 79% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2590.0 2260.96107784 115% => OK
No of words: 491.0 441.139720559 111% => OK
Chars per words: 5.2749490835 5.12650576532 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.70728369723 4.56307096286 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.92685811012 2.78398813304 105% => OK
Unique words: 212.0 204.123752495 104% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.431771894094 0.468620217663 92% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 827.1 705.55239521 117% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.76447105788 68% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 19.7664670659 101% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 22.8473053892 105% => OK
Sentence length SD: 66.5126115861 57.8364921388 115% => OK
Chars per sentence: 129.5 119.503703932 108% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.55 23.324526521 105% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.15 5.70786347227 108% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 5.25449101796 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 8.20758483034 146% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.88822355289 73% => 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: 0.142233185772 0.218282227539 65% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0503035246627 0.0743258471296 68% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0531949681104 0.0701772020484 76% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0885277967417 0.128457276422 69% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0634459605572 0.0628817314937 101% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.7 14.3799401198 109% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 38.66 48.3550499002 80% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 12.197005988 113% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.58 12.5979740519 108% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.56 8.32208582834 103% => OK
difficult_words: 116.0 98.500998004 118% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 12.3882235529 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.1389221557 104% => 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.