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. Therefore, I recommend that we start a 'Shakespeare in the Park' program of our own. If we do so, I predict that our profits will also see a significant increase."
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.
The marketing director of the Classical Shakespeare Theatre of Bardville(CST) is arguing that instituting a 'Shakespeare in the Park Program' will solve the problem that CST is having. This is based on the previous fact that Avon Repertory Company(ARC) had 'Free Plays in the Park' program that led ARC's profits increased about 10 percent since then. This argument, however, does not adequately answered the questions to make sure that CST will gain profit from introducing the new program. The manager not only assumes that ARC could have increased its profit by introducing a new program to the park, but also CST will successfully replicate their increase in profit.
The First question that needs to be answered is related to the main assumptions that the manager has. We need to ask questions whether 'Free Plays in the Park Program' has gained increased profit to ARC. We need to know other factors that might have influenced the profit of ARC. In case of the ARC, there might have been an increase in nearby neighborhood that might have led to the increase in audiences. It was not a new program alone that gathered audiences to the Theatre.
Secondly, even if the success of ARC was based on the introduction of a new program, we still need to question whether CST can replicate the success of ARC. When the manager assumes that CST can replicate the success of ARC, there is an assumption laid that the milieu of the two would be similar so that the free new program will bring profit to the organization. However, there is no guarantee that the business background for the two could be similar. We need to question what exactly brought to ARC that led to an increase in profit and such factors are similar in CST.
Last, but not least, we need to answer whether CST's previous marketing processes were working so that introduction of the new program will bring lights to the organization. If their marketing methods were wrong at first place, as we can see that despite increased advertising, CST was lost in attracting people. If it was their marketing process that failed to properly advertise themselves, then an introduction of a new program could similarly be a fiasco for them because people will not know whether CST has a new program to show. Thus, we should know whether increased advertising of CST is working properly, such as whether they are advertising in felicitous methods.
In the end, unless questioned perspicaciously, we cannot estimate whether an introduction of the new program will bring profits to CST. The director's haphazard assumptions, unless answered properly, might bring a pernicious result to CST.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
argument 1 -- OK
argument 2 -- OK
argument 3 -- not exactly. suppose their marketing methods were correct, it doesn't grantee the success. for example, the 20% decrease in the number of clients was due to lack of performances of theater; or people nowadays are not interested in free plays outside; or those audiences are from neighboring cities...
----------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 16 15
No. of Words: 445 350
No. of Characters: 2148 1500
No. of Different Words: 181 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.593 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.827 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.711 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 148 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 126 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 75 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 54 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 27.812 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 14.249 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.625 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.384 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.61 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.221 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 388, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[3]
Message: The verb 'does' requires base form of the verb: 'answer'
Suggestion: answer
... argument, however, does not adequately answered the questions to make sure that CST wil...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, second, secondly, similarly, so, still, then, thus, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.6327345309 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 25.0 12.9520958084 193% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 11.1786427146 27% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 20.0 13.6137724551 147% => OK
Pronoun: 38.0 28.8173652695 132% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 53.0 55.5748502994 95% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 16.3942115768 67% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2196.0 2260.96107784 97% => OK
No of words: 445.0 441.139720559 101% => OK
Chars per words: 4.93483146067 5.12650576532 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.59293186426 4.56307096286 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.77162566915 2.78398813304 100% => OK
Unique words: 187.0 204.123752495 92% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.420224719101 0.468620217663 90% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 642.6 705.55239521 91% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.59920159681 88% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 4.96107784431 202% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 4.0 8.76447105788 46% => OK
Subordination: 7.0 2.70958083832 258% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 22.8473053892 101% => OK
Sentence length SD: 41.6189015231 57.8364921388 72% => OK
Chars per sentence: 115.578947368 119.503703932 97% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.4210526316 23.324526521 100% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.73684210526 5.70786347227 83% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 8.20758483034 146% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.88822355289 58% => 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: 0.0660099000625 0.218282227539 30% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0282460018072 0.0743258471296 38% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0564544575435 0.0701772020484 80% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0415046436484 0.128457276422 32% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0277221114491 0.0628817314937 44% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.5 14.3799401198 94% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 65.05 48.3550499002 135% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 12.197005988 81% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.61 12.5979740519 92% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.58 8.32208582834 91% => OK
difficult_words: 79.0 98.500998004 80% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 12.3882235529 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.1389221557 101% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 16.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.