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 director decided to allocate a greater share of its budget for advertising in the hope that more people will attend Super screen produced movies. The conclusion was supported by evidence that there is greater percentage of positive reviews. The arguement is flawed in many aspects.
Firstly, What was total number of people who gave reviews? The author prematurely assumes that since there was a greater percentage of positive review the movie might be good but talks little about total numer of people who reviewed it. For instance, It might be possible that the movie was reviewed by only 100 people out of which most of them gave good reviews. Since the number of people reviewed is less it cannot be a good indicator for the quality of the movie. The author needs to find out how many people reviewed the movie and if it is low then company should try to collect more reviews.
Secondly, Are there other factors that affect the number of people attending the movie? The Author assumes that the number of people attending the movie is only based on the reach of positive reviews but fail to provide any evidence that would bolster the assumption. It might be possible that there are other factors affecting. For instance, During last year due to ongoing pandemic many people restrained themselves from going out which might have led to less number of people attending the movie. Also it might be possible that the people have access to pirated copies of these movies. The director need to do proper research in order to identify the exact factors that is causing low people to attend the movie.
Thirdly, Is current advertising method efficient? The author talks little about the current advertisement. It might be possible that the current advertisement method is not efficent enough to reach the public if thats the case its advisable to adopt a new advertisement method rather than increasing the budget.
In conclusion, The arguement is based on several unwarranted assumptions and can be better evaluated once the director answers above mention questions through proper research and survey.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 8 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 5 2
No. of Sentences: 18 15
No. of Words: 352 350
No. of Characters: 1723 1500
No. of Different Words: 162 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.331 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.895 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.429 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 134 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 86 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 54 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 28 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 19.556 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.814 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.611 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.356 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.589 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.115 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 246, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...greater percentage of positive reviews. The arguement is flawed in many aspects. ...
^^^
Line 5, column 502, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Also,
...s number of people attending the movie. Also it might be possible that the people ha...
^^^^
Line 7, column 213, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: that's
... efficent enough to reach the public if thats the case its advisable to adopt a new a...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, if, second, secondly, so, then, third, thirdly, as to, for instance, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 19.6327345309 112% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.9520958084 93% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 11.1786427146 45% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 15.0 13.6137724551 110% => OK
Pronoun: 23.0 28.8173652695 80% => OK
Preposition: 44.0 55.5748502994 79% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 16.3942115768 67% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1763.0 2260.96107784 78% => OK
No of words: 352.0 441.139720559 80% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.00852272727 5.12650576532 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.33147354134 4.56307096286 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.50256679956 2.78398813304 90% => OK
Unique words: 162.0 204.123752495 79% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.460227272727 0.468620217663 98% => OK
syllable_count: 551.7 705.55239521 78% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 19.7664670659 91% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 51.2880090912 57.8364921388 89% => OK
Chars per sentence: 97.9444444444 119.503703932 82% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.5555555556 23.324526521 84% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.05555555556 5.70786347227 106% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.20758483034 122% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.88822355289 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.67664670659 86% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.170779159106 0.218282227539 78% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0532748751475 0.0743258471296 72% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0534839143429 0.0701772020484 76% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0851954499419 0.128457276422 66% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0554614941093 0.0628817314937 88% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.9 14.3799401198 83% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 48.3550499002 108% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.197005988 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.78 12.5979740519 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.76 8.32208582834 93% => OK
difficult_words: 71.0 98.500998004 72% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 12.3882235529 61% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => 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.