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.
The manager of Rialto Movie Theater claims that changes must be made to replicate the Apex Theater in order to prevent decreasing moviegoers. While the recommendation may have some merit, the argument itself is not cogent enough as it is filled with a number of unstated assumptions that need to be addressed. Hence, three questions must be asked in order to determine the validity of the recommendation.
Firstly, the author assumes that following the example of the new Apex Theater outside of town will increase moviegoers. However, we must question the location of the Apex Theater. It could be that the new Apex theater is running successfully and more attractively due to its location nearby a mall. Perhaps, many people are more interested in going to the movies near a mall; Or, it could be that because many people go to the mall, when they see a movie theater they are more inclined to attend. Therefore, the location of the movie theater may be the reason as to why moviegoers are increasing. If the author assumes that it is due to features only, whereas it may be due to location, then it would prove the prediction wrong. The author must validate that the location and population near the Apex Theater isn’t an influence to increased moviegoers.
Secondly, we must question the features of the new Apex Theater. While the features may draw attraction, it could be that customers are more interested in other features. Perhaps, a movie theater may be successful in providing a video arcade, plush seats and carpets, and improved quality of sound. However, many moviegoers near Rialto may be more interested in just the quality of food and quality of the films. If the quality of food and films are lacking in Rialto and are not addressed, then the manager following the features of the New Apex Theater may be addressing the wrong features to increase moviegoers in the area. Therefore, the manager must provide a survey indicating what features are needed to improve in order to maintain and increase moviegoers.
Lastly, the manager assumes that all moviegoers are decreasing due to high prices in films. However, we must question the evidence the manager provides. The manager indicates a survey that 85% respondents stated that increased prices of films will decrease likelihood of attending movie theaters. It could be that 85% of the respondents are people who rarely go to the movies, but try to make an effort. Perhaps, the people who responded to the survey were only 10, therefore indicating that only a few responders gave their opinion. If the survey had a large number of respondents and directly asked people near Rialto movie theater, then the author can assume that people are less likely to attend. However, if the survey indicates that only a few respondents answered and were people from another location, then it would not support the prediction that moviegoers are decreasing for Rialto.
Moreover, the manager provides a number of assumptions that need to be questioned and addressed. If the answers to the questions indicate otherwise, then the manager may be looking at the wrong features to improve and wrong data that supports nearby moviegoers decrease in attendance. The author must address the questions in order to validate the recommendation.
Comments
e-rater score report
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: 26 15
No. of Words: 549 350
No. of Characters: 2677 1500
No. of Different Words: 194 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.841 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.876 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.662 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 203 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 156 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 103 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 63 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.115 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.546 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.769 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.331 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.519 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.149 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 553, Rule ID: LARGE_NUMBER_OF[1]
Message: Specify a number, remove phrase, or simply use 'many' or 'numerous'
Suggestion: many; numerous
...s gave their opinion. If the survey had a large number of respondents and directly asked people n...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 776, Rule ID: WERE_VBB[1]
Message: Did you mean 'where' or 'we'?
Suggestion: where; we
...hat only a few respondents answered and were people from another location, then it w...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, firstly, hence, however, if, lastly, look, may, moreover, second, secondly, so, then, therefore, whereas, while, as to
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 31.0 19.6327345309 158% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 27.0 12.9520958084 208% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 13.0 11.1786427146 116% => OK
Relative clauses : 21.0 13.6137724551 154% => OK
Pronoun: 35.0 28.8173652695 121% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 62.0 55.5748502994 112% => OK
Nominalization: 20.0 16.3942115768 122% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2755.0 2260.96107784 122% => OK
No of words: 548.0 441.139720559 124% => OK
Chars per words: 5.02737226277 5.12650576532 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.83832613839 4.56307096286 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.75819402217 2.78398813304 99% => OK
Unique words: 202.0 204.123752495 99% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.368613138686 0.468620217663 79% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 864.9 705.55239521 123% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Article: 12.0 8.76447105788 137% => OK
Subordination: 8.0 2.70958083832 295% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 0.0 4.22255489022 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 26.0 19.7664670659 132% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 41.5024951128 57.8364921388 72% => OK
Chars per sentence: 105.961538462 119.503703932 89% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.0769230769 23.324526521 90% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.0 5.70786347227 88% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 8.20758483034 158% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.88822355289 73% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.67664670659 171% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.195940515267 0.218282227539 90% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0687284768008 0.0743258471296 92% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0598012115648 0.0701772020484 85% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.11843385104 0.128457276422 92% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0485762744253 0.0628817314937 77% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.8 14.3799401198 89% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 48.3550499002 104% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.197005988 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.89 12.5979740519 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.56 8.32208582834 91% => OK
difficult_words: 100.0 98.500998004 102% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 12.3882235529 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.