The author tries to analyse the reasons behind the drop in viewership of Super Screen produced movies. In the process, he identifies lack of awareness of the supposedly good quality of movies among the public and therefore proposes to allocate a greater share of the budget to outreach via advertising.
The author begins his analysis by pulling a report from the marketing department and identifies a dip in the viewer count over the last year. Without asking if it is a general trend attributed to a possible economic slowdown, it cannot be clearly ascertained if the perceived reduction is actually due to movie quality. If productions of other movie houses are witnessing a similar dip in the numbers, there isn't anything to worry about and the proposed hike in advertising budget would be unwarranted.
Subsequently, he notices that the number of postitive reviews about specific movies going up. However, it is not clear if the those specific movies are representative of the kind of movies that Super Screen usually produces. It is possible that the other movies (the non-specific ones) are actually attracting negative reviews and one-off specific reviews are gaining marginal positive attention over others. Maginal, because the actual increase in the number of positive reviews is not established. If it is a 10% increase, the increase need not be really due to the quality of the movie and could be due to curiosity among viewers (since it is a specific movie).
To elaborate further, it is not known who is authoring the supposedly shiny reviews of the specific movies. If it turns out that the reviews are non-critical and are not from seasoned, renowned reviewers, it is not wise to base an increase in the advertising budget on these not so critical reviews from fans and movie-goers. These authors might be fascinated by movies of a given genre and may not accurately review the standard elements of a movie.
Furthermore, the author somehow assumes that the good reviews are not reaching people without asking if the medium or the platform on which these reviews written, is popular among customers. It could be possible that a new movie review website has opened its doors to reviews. The author in this case, should look at reviews of all movies that Super Screen has ever produced, from established review websites such as IMDB. Since the reviews are moderated and upvoted by the commuity, these reviews would present a fair and unbiased view of the quality of the movies. Unless the authenticity of the new reviews is established, it does not make a compelling case for a hike in the advertising budget.
Finally, talking about the advertising budget, the author should analyse or conduct a survey of the effectiveness of the advertising methods currently employed at Super Screen. It may not be an issue with the quality of the movie or the viewership count and might be related to the advertising reach. Instead of pumping more money into a feeble advertising program, the author should look at improving the quality of advertisements and ensure maximum reach, thereby pleasing the management at Super Screen.
Given the current state of the analysis, it is highly unlikely that the management at Super Screen movies would be convinced to raise their advertising budget without curiously finding answers to the above questions.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 409, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: isn't
...ing a similar dip in the numbers, there isnt anything to worry about and the propose...
^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['actually', 'but', 'finally', 'furthermore', 'however', 'if', 'look', 'may', 'really', 'so', 'then', 'therefore', 'kind of', 'such as', 'talking about']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.255 0.25644967241 99% => OK
Verbs: 0.153333333333 0.15541462614 99% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0816666666667 0.0836205057962 98% => OK
Adverbs: 0.055 0.0520304965353 106% => OK
Pronouns: 0.03 0.0272364105082 110% => OK
Prepositions: 0.133333333333 0.125424944231 106% => OK
Participles: 0.0533333333333 0.0416121511921 128% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.79535714877 2.79052419416 100% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0233333333333 0.026700313972 87% => OK
Particles: 0.00333333333333 0.001811407834 184% => OK
Determiners: 0.135 0.113004496875 119% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0233333333333 0.0255425247493 91% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.00666666666667 0.0127820249294 52% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 3358.0 2731.13054187 123% => OK
No of words: 555.0 446.07635468 124% => OK
Chars per words: 6.05045045045 6.12365571057 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.85370353223 4.57801047555 106% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.403603603604 0.378187486979 107% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.308108108108 0.287650121315 107% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.198198198198 0.208842608468 95% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.115315315315 0.135150697306 85% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.79535714877 2.79052419416 100% => OK
Unique words: 252.0 207.018472906 122% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.454054054054 0.469332199767 97% => OK
Word variations: 53.6705017722 52.1807786196 103% => OK
How many sentences: 22.0 20.039408867 110% => OK
Sentence length: 25.2272727273 23.2022227129 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 40.974820932 57.7814097925 71% => OK
Chars per sentence: 152.636363636 141.986410481 108% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.2272727273 23.2022227129 109% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.681818181818 0.724660767414 94% => OK
Paragraphs: 7.0 5.14285714286 136% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 3.58251231527 28% => OK
Readability: 56.0380835381 51.9672348444 108% => OK
Elegance: 1.85314685315 1.8405768891 101% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.424746779364 0.441005458295 96% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.150269585235 0.135418324435 111% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0573859594628 0.0829849096947 69% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.658857338113 0.58762219726 112% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.144450535286 0.147661913831 98% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.206051795373 0.193483328276 106% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0793301647063 0.0970749176394 82% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.493335838374 0.42659136922 116% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0574175655716 0.0774707102158 74% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.303759801722 0.312017818177 97% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0410204766736 0.0698173142475 59% => The ideas may be duplicated in paragraphs.
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 17.0 8.33743842365 204% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 6.87684729064 29% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.82512315271 62% => OK
Positive topic words: 17.0 6.46551724138 263% => OK
Negative topic words: 2.0 5.36822660099 37% => OK
Neutral topic words: 3.0 2.82389162562 106% => OK
Total topic words: 22.0 14.657635468 150% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 Out of 6 -- The score is based on the average performance of 20,000 argument essays. This e-grader is not smart enough to check on arguments.
---------------------
Note: This is not the final score. 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.