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 memo from the advertising director of Super Screen Movie Production Company states that the company should allocate a greater share of its budget to reaching the public through advertising. The author provides his recommendation on the basis of the marketing department's report, which suggests a discrepancy: despite fewer people attending the Super Screen-produced movies that year, the percentage of positive reviews by movie reviewers has increased. However, before the argument can be properly evaluated, the following three questions need to be answered.
First of all, does the past year's report indicate a general trend? Perhaps, the number of people going to the theatres last year simply decreased because of an ongoing pandemic. It is likely that people were scared to venture out alone for leisure activities, and this led to the drop in their attendance at Super Screen-produced movies. Moreover, it is likely that the movies released by Super Screen last year did not have mass appeal, but the movies lined up for the upcoming years may cater to a larger audience. This would lead to a reversal of the trend, with a higher population signing up to watch movies created for laypersons like them. If either of these scenarios is true, it is likely that the author's recommendation does not hold water, and additonal answers need to be provided.
Secondly, how can it be assumed that the public is unaware of the quality of movies available at Super Screen? In the age of the internet, where everything is connected, it is erroneous to assume that people wanting to watch a particular movie would have no access to its reviews. Just because a few people gave the movie a good rating, does not mean that everyone else would want to view it as well. It is possible that a majority of last year's movie dealt with sensitive or niche issues which did not attract the general populace. In such cases, the an increased budget for advertising would do little to attract viewers, and would instead be a waste of the firm's financial and human resources.
Thirdly, who gave the positive reviews for the Super Screen movie reviews? It is highly likely that some of the positive reviewers could have watched the movie on an OTT platform, or through illegal downloads. This would explain the difference between the high ratings given to the movies, despite the low sales. It is also possible that the reviews were only given by people who liked the movie, and those who disliked it chose not to comment at all. In such cases, the author's recommendation becomes futile, and his assumption that "movies of good quality are available" becomes quite specious.
In conclusion, the argument as it stands right now is unpersuasive, if not outrightly false. It relies on a number of unwarranted assumptions, and the director needs to provide additional evidence, perhaps in the form of a detailed research study, to further his claims and suggestions. Only in the presence of more conclusive evidence can the argument be evaluated properly.
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: 6 2
No. of Sentences: 22 15
No. of Words: 506 350
No. of Characters: 2474 1500
No. of Different Words: 252 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.743 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.889 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.652 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 188 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 135 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 90 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 49 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 23 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.842 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.409 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.289 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.504 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.056 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 708, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...cenarios is true, it is likely that the authors recommendation does not hold water, and...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 441, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'years'' or 'year's'?
Suggestion: years'; year's
... It is possible that a majority of last years movie dealt with sensitive or niche iss...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 549, Rule ID: DT_DT[1]
Message: Maybe you need to remove one determiner so that only 'the' or 'an' is left.
Suggestion: the; an
...ct the general populace. In such cases, the an increased budget for advertising would ...
^^^^^^
Line 7, column 101, Rule ID: SOME_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'some'.
Suggestion: some
...movie reviews? It is highly likely that some of the positive reviewers could have watched t...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 472, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...t to comment at all. In such cases, the authors recommendation becomes futile, and his ...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, may, moreover, second, secondly, so, third, thirdly, well, in conclusion, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.6327345309 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.9520958084 108% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 11.1786427146 98% => OK
Relative clauses : 18.0 13.6137724551 132% => OK
Pronoun: 36.0 28.8173652695 125% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 67.0 55.5748502994 121% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 16.3942115768 98% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2548.0 2260.96107784 113% => OK
No of words: 506.0 441.139720559 115% => OK
Chars per words: 5.03557312253 5.12650576532 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.7428307748 4.56307096286 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.79043825268 2.78398813304 100% => OK
Unique words: 260.0 204.123752495 127% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.513833992095 0.468620217663 110% => OK
syllable_count: 798.3 705.55239521 113% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 4.96107784431 202% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 8.0 1.67365269461 478% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 8.0 4.22255489022 189% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 19.7664670659 111% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 22.8473053892 101% => OK
Sentence length SD: 44.5410016327 57.8364921388 77% => OK
Chars per sentence: 115.818181818 119.503703932 97% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.0 23.324526521 99% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.31818181818 5.70786347227 93% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 5.25449101796 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 8.20758483034 158% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => 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: 0.322915122671 0.218282227539 148% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0830387467743 0.0743258471296 112% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0886376504302 0.0701772020484 126% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.176777558237 0.128457276422 138% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.138041333812 0.0628817314937 220% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.8 14.3799401198 96% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 48.13 48.3550499002 100% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.197005988 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.25 12.5979740519 97% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.87 8.32208582834 107% => OK
difficult_words: 131.0 98.500998004 133% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.1389221557 101% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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.