The following appeared in an e-mail sent by the marketing director of the Classical Shakespeare Theatre of Bardville.
"Over the past ten years, there has been a 20 percent decline in the size of the average audience at Classical Shakespeare Theatre productions. In spite of increased advertising, we are attracting fewer and fewer people to our shows, causing our profits to decrease significantly. We must take action to attract new audience members. The best way to do so is by instituting a 'Shakespeare in the Park' program this summer. Two years ago the nearby Avon Repertory Company started a 'Free Plays in the Park' program, and its profits have increased 10 percent since then. If we start a 'Shakespeare in the Park' program, we can predict that our profits will increase, too."
Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the recommendation is likely to have the predicted result. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the recommendation
Marketing director of the Classical Shakespeare Theatre of Bardville discusses about how to make more audiences in order to make more profits. He documented that advertisement doesn’t attract people and eventually causing profits significantly. Basically, one of his vision is to increase the profit is to have ‘Shakespeare in the Park’ program as Avon Repertory Company made ‘Free Plays in the Park’ program. This program will induce the audiences to come Classical Shakespeare Theatre of Bardville and make more profits. It seems very logically convincing at first glance, but there is unstated assumption that affect the Marketing director’s argument.
First of all, the question should be answered is how the advertisement made? The purpose of the advertisement is to attract people to buy goods or see movies, musicals and so on. However, in opposite direction of purpose of advertisement, marketing director of Classical Shakespeare Theatre of Bardville is showing advertisement doesn’t show any profits at all. The advertisement probably doesn’t have make attraction of Classical Shakespeare Theatre. To bolster the argument, they should have change the advertisement in various types.
Furthermore, where marketing director advertise to? It is very important that where advertisement arises because this will decide which age of customers are going to see. If it was on the internet, for example, twenty to thirty years old people will probably watch this advertisement, but they are not interested in Classical Shakespeare Theatre, then it definitely lose advertisement purpose. To strengthen argument, marketing director should cast failure of example in advertisement into various types of way, such as social media, mass media, TV show so that marketing director determines that advertisement didn’t help to make profits.
Moreover, the question should answered is how to tell a profit if there nonfactor of doing the similar program as did Avon Repertory Company? It has been two year that Avon Repertory Company did this program. Marketing director didn’t show any evidence about the recent profit of Avon Repertory Company; it can be stagnant. Even if Avon Repertory Company make profit of ten percent recently, it doesn’t mean that Classical Shakespeare Theatre of Bardville is going to make better profits.
In conclusion, since there are several types of unsubstantiated assumption that is not convincing, marketing director should answer with these question, then it will help to bolster that Classical Shakespeare Theatre of Bardville will increase the profit as he expected, then the argument can be more logically sound.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 367, Rule ID: IT_VBZ[1]
Message: Did you mean 'loses'?
Suggestion: loses
...Shakespeare Theatre, then it definitely lose advertisement purpose. To strengthen ar...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, furthermore, however, if, moreover, so, then, for example, in conclusion, such as, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 19.6327345309 92% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.9520958084 93% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 11.1786427146 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 12.0 13.6137724551 88% => OK
Pronoun: 27.0 28.8173652695 94% => OK
Preposition: 54.0 55.5748502994 97% => OK
Nominalization: 24.0 16.3942115768 146% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2307.0 2260.96107784 102% => OK
No of words: 405.0 441.139720559 92% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.6962962963 5.12650576532 111% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.48604634366 4.56307096286 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.22257128803 2.78398813304 116% => OK
Unique words: 182.0 204.123752495 89% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.449382716049 0.468620217663 96% => OK
syllable_count: 727.2 705.55239521 103% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.59920159681 113% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 4.96107784431 161% => OK
Interrogative: 1.0 0.471057884232 212% => OK
Article: 4.0 8.76447105788 46% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 65.8063978232 57.8364921388 114% => OK
Chars per sentence: 121.421052632 119.503703932 102% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.3157894737 23.324526521 91% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.63157894737 5.70786347227 99% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 8.20758483034 158% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 6.88822355289 44% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.247002899948 0.218282227539 113% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0900530824929 0.0743258471296 121% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0781567685816 0.0701772020484 111% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.154632602493 0.128457276422 120% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0512238122532 0.0628817314937 81% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.1 14.3799401198 112% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 33.24 48.3550499002 69% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 12.197005988 113% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.78 12.5979740519 125% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.95 8.32208582834 96% => OK
difficult_words: 84.0 98.500998004 85% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 12.3882235529 97% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 16.0 11.9071856287 134% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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: 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.