The following appeared as part of a business plan developed by the manager of the Rialto Movie Theater.
"Despite its downtown location, the Rialto Movie Theater, a local institution for five decades, must make big changes or close its doors forever. It should follow the example of the new Apex Theater in the mall outside of town. When the Apex opened last year, it featured a video arcade, plush carpeting and seats, and a state-of-the-art sound system. Furthermore, in a recent survey, over 85 percent of respondents reported that the high price of newly released movies prevents them from going to the movies more than five times per year. Thus, if the Rialto intends to hold on to its share of a decreasing pool of moviegoers, it must offer the same features as Apex."
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.
In the argument, the manager of the Rialto Movie Theater concluded that if the Rialto intends to hold on to its share of a decreasing pool of moviegoers, it must offer the same features as Apex. However, the author supports his conclusion with three unfounded assumptions, if refuted, will dramatically undermine the persuasiveness of the argument. For evaluating the argument, three question must be answered.
Firstly, is Apex able to attract the moviegoers? The author assumes without any evidence that the moviegoers are inclined to the Apex Theater, but this may not be true. It is possible that Apex movie theater is not popular in moviegoers. Apex may attract the children for their ostentatious features. It is possible that the movie industies are not producing good movies, for this reason the number of moviegoers are decreasing day by day, so no adding of extra features and changes are able to attract the viewers to the theater. If any of the cases is true, then the managers' conclusion will not make any sense.
Secondly, Apex may attract more viewers, but is the overall condition of the Rialto and Apex same? The manager presumes that the every factor of these two theater are same. However, the case may not be necessarily true. In the argument it is clearly stated that Apex is at the outside of the city and in a mall. On the othe hand, Rialto is at the downtown. It is possible that during weekend the city people visit the mall and at the same time most of them visit Apex, but Rialto is at the downtown and may be it is a seperated structure, so it is only for the people who actually inteded to watch movies. The number of actual moviegoers may be small amount. If the case is true, then only to add same features as Apex will not be effective for the Rialto, they need to change their location also and, thus, it weaken the arguments.
Finally, is the survey done fairly? The author assumes so. It is possible that the survey was done in the poor citizens of the city, who can not afford the present cost of the theater, and they may be small in number, then the argument will not be persuasive.
In conlcusion, by changing Rialto as Apex may ameliorate the present condintion of the theater; however, as it stands now, the conclusion relies on three unwarranted assumptions and make the argument specious and untenable. Therefore, the author should provide additional information regarding the questions to make the argument reasonable and unassailable.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 22 15
No. of Words: 430 350
No. of Characters: 1994 1500
No. of Different Words: 174 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.554 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.637 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.556 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 141 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 107 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 72 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 41 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 19.545 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 12.848 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.773 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.318 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.511 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.088 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 570, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'managers'' or 'manager's'?
Suggestion: managers'; manager's
.... If any of the cases is true, then the managers conclusion will not make any sense. ...
^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 504, Rule ID: MAY_BE[1]
Message: Did you mean 'maybe' (=perhaps)?
Suggestion: maybe
...Apex, but Rialto is at the downtown and may be it is a seperated structure, so it is o...
^^^^^^
Line 5, column 812, Rule ID: IT_VBZ[1]
Message: Did you mean 'weakens'?
Suggestion: weakens
...hange their location also and, thus, it weaken the arguments. Finally, is the surve...
^^^^^^
Line 7, column 202, Rule ID: ADJECTIVE_IN_ATTRIBUTE[1]
Message: A more concise phrase may lose no meaning and sound more powerful.
Suggestion: small
...nt cost of the theater, and they may be small in number, then the argument will not be persuasi...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, finally, first, firstly, however, if, may, regarding, second, secondly, so, then, therefore, thus
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 30.0 19.6327345309 153% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 17.0 12.9520958084 131% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 11.1786427146 116% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 13.6137724551 73% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 28.0 28.8173652695 97% => OK
Preposition: 46.0 55.5748502994 83% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 16.3942115768 79% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2062.0 2260.96107784 91% => OK
No of words: 430.0 441.139720559 97% => OK
Chars per words: 4.79534883721 5.12650576532 94% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.55372829156 4.56307096286 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.66626056039 2.78398813304 96% => OK
Unique words: 190.0 204.123752495 93% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.441860465116 0.468620217663 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 652.5 705.55239521 92% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.67365269461 239% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 19.7664670659 111% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 69.3021889151 57.8364921388 120% => OK
Chars per sentence: 93.7272727273 119.503703932 78% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.5454545455 23.324526521 84% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.36363636364 5.70786347227 94% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 6.88822355289 160% => OK
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: 0.194431309785 0.218282227539 89% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0608711768001 0.0743258471296 82% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0650721175258 0.0701772020484 93% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.115277709005 0.128457276422 90% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0514381634857 0.0628817314937 82% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.0 14.3799401198 76% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 60.65 48.3550499002 125% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 12.197005988 78% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.56 12.5979740519 84% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.07 8.32208582834 97% => OK
difficult_words: 95.0 98.500998004 96% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 12.3882235529 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => 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.