The following is a memorandum from the business manager of a television station.
"Over the past year, our late-night news program has devoted increased time to national news and less time to weather and local news. During this time period, most of the complaints received from viewers were concerned with our station's coverage of weather and local news. In addition, local businesses that used to advertise during our late-night news program have just canceled their advertising contracts with us. Therefore, in order to attract more viewers to the program and to avoid losing any further advertising revenues, we should restore the time devoted to weather and local news to its former level."
Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.
The advertising director of the Super Screen Movie Production Company in his memo claims that the decrease in the number of people attending Super Screen produced movie is due to lack of proper advertisements of the movies and proposes that the budget for the same should be increased next year to ensure that more viewers attend the movies. Although it seems logical that increase in advertisements will increase movie viewers, the advertising director has overlooked numerous conspicuous questions and made numerous fallacious assumptions in making the decision.
The director has not provided any statistics to indicate the rate of decline in viewership. He has assumed that the decline is due to flaws in the promotion of the movies. However, several other reasons such as a decline in economic conditions, poor state of theatres in the country, availability of movies online free of cost, etc. may have led to the decline. Also, the author needs to provide evidence that the decline in viewership did not occur for movies in general and was specific for movies produced by Super Screen. Unless these questions are answered, it would be fallacious to assume that increasing advertisements will increase movie attendance by viewers.
Secondly, the author has assumed that audience visit movies based on reviews provided by the movie reviewers. It is possible that the movies produced by Super Screen are intense films which are highly appreciated by movie critics but not the general audience who favor watching comedies, romantic movies, family drama or animations. The director should take into consideration the type of movies the audience want to view and compare it to the movies being produced by Super Screen. If the genres of the movies are different, then increasing the advertisements in promoting the movies will not have the desired effects.
Lastly, if it turns out that the economy of the country has not declined and the movies produced by Super Screen interests the audience, one has to look deep into the advertising policy and medium used by the company. Do the advertisements use variety of media – television, newspaper, website, radio etc.? If the promotion of the movies is done by only one form of media, which does not reach the target audience, the form of media used should be changed rather than increasing the budget for promotion. Also, are the advertisements reaching the target audience? If the timing of the promotions is slack, it should be improved such that the target audience come to know about the new movies. Unless a survey is done to answer these question, merely increasing the budget for advertisement will not have the desired effect of increasing audience for Super Screen produced movies.
Though increasing advertisements to promote a movie does seem a good idea, unless the questions raised above are answered cogently, the recommendation of the advertising director for increasing movie audience is not likely to be efficacious. The author needs to provide cogent answers to the questions with dispassionate surveys to support his claim that increasing advertisements for the movies will increase the viewership of movies.
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'but', 'however', 'if', 'lastly', 'look', 'may', 'second', 'secondly', 'so', 'then', 'as to', 'in general', 'such as']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.286486486486 0.25644967241 112% => OK
Verbs: 0.187387387387 0.15541462614 121% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0612612612613 0.0836205057962 73% => OK
Adverbs: 0.036036036036 0.0520304965353 69% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0162162162162 0.0272364105082 60% => OK
Prepositions: 0.138738738739 0.125424944231 111% => OK
Participles: 0.0684684684685 0.0416121511921 165% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.85901677123 2.79052419416 102% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0306306306306 0.026700313972 115% => OK
Particles: 0.0018018018018 0.001811407834 99% => OK
Determiners: 0.118918918919 0.113004496875 105% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0198198198198 0.0255425247493 78% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.00540540540541 0.0127820249294 42% => Some subClauses wanted starting by 'Which, Who, What, Whom, Whose.....'
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 3186.0 2731.13054187 117% => OK
No of words: 512.0 446.07635468 115% => OK
Chars per words: 6.22265625 6.12365571057 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.75682846001 4.57801047555 104% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.412109375 0.378187486979 109% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.294921875 0.287650121315 103% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.220703125 0.208842608468 106% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.126953125 0.135150697306 94% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.85901677123 2.79052419416 102% => OK
Unique words: 225.0 207.018472906 109% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.439453125 0.469332199767 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
Word variations: 50.3858135624 52.1807786196 97% => OK
How many sentences: 20.0 20.039408867 100% => OK
Sentence length: 25.6 23.2022227129 110% => OK
Sentence length SD: 71.4484954355 57.7814097925 124% => OK
Chars per sentence: 159.3 141.986410481 112% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.6 23.2022227129 110% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.7 0.724660767414 97% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 3.58251231527 0% => OK
Readability: 55.0921875 51.9672348444 106% => OK
Elegance: 2.06015037594 1.8405768891 112% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.356741002912 0.441005458295 81% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.167257286279 0.135418324435 124% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0681492683261 0.0829849096947 82% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.647206621853 0.58762219726 110% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.154479974352 0.147661913831 105% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.195047615656 0.193483328276 101% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0790908675362 0.0970749176394 81% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.606951579947 0.42659136922 142% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0569893944252 0.0774707102158 74% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.288287648833 0.312017818177 92% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.029602155695 0.0698173142475 42% => The ideas may be duplicated in paragraphs.
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 14.0 8.33743842365 168% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 6.87684729064 15% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.82512315271 104% => OK
Positive topic words: 13.0 6.46551724138 201% => OK
Negative topic words: 1.0 5.36822660099 19% => More negative topic words wanted.
Neutral topic words: 4.0 2.82389162562 142% => OK
Total topic words: 18.0 14.657635468 123% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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: 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.