The following is taken fromamemo from the advertising director of the Super Screen Movie Production Company According to a recent report from our marketing department during the past year fewer people attended Super Screen produced movies than in any othe

Essay topics:

The following is taken fromamemo from the advertising director of the Super Screen Movie Production Company.
"According to a recent report from our marketing department,during the past year,fewer people attended Super Screen-produced movies than in any other year.And yet the percentage of positive reviews by movie reviewers about specific Super Screen movies actually increased during the past year.Clearly,the contents of these reviews are not reaching enough of our prospective viewers. Thus,the problem lies not with the quality of our movies but with the public's lack of awareness that movies of good quality are available. Super Screen should therefore allocate a greater share of its budget next year to reaching the public through advertising."

As mentioned in the memo from the advertising director, the argument clearly undermines the below mentioned lines. Here the comparison is only made about the number of people attended the Super Screen produced movies. The comparison is only made with the past year's data which is clearly invalid.

Firstly, according to the previous report from their marketing department, last year only fewer people attended the Super Screen-produced movies. That comparison was made comparing with any other years. Coming to a conclusion just relying on a year's poor performance having less number of people is clearly unreasonable.

Secondly, it states that the percentage of positive reviews by movie reviewers increased during the past year. This point is clearly incomplete as there is no stated prrof of how many people attended this Super Screen-produced movie. It could also be possible that only the movie makers and few of the close one's related to them would have only attended. They would definitely rate the movie good there is no point of negative review. As there is no clarification this point in argument fails to help to conclude.

Thirdly, linked with the above point that these reviews are not reaching enough of their prospective viewers. This statement clearly has been proving the above argument as there were less number of people the publicity would have also failed to reach to greater number of people. Hence the content of the review were not reaching enough of the prospective views.

It is mentioned further that the problem is not with the quality of movies but with public's lack of awareness. The director has just came up to the conclusion that his quality of movies have no problem, just the public's lack of awareness about good quality movies. For someone it might be of good quality but it is also possible that other people would not like the genre of the movie and they might also find it boring. Always, the initial hype of movie is created by the actor or actress present in the movie. It can be also possible that they might also not be present in the movie. Sometimes movie with weak story lineup but having good actor or actress becomes hit in the box office.

Concluding, there were many factors which were clearly not mentioned in the memo. The advertising director was in favour of the movie produced by his productions. He kept on considering a single fact that the movie was good and was lack to public's knowledge. He didn't forsee the other factors which are also responsible. He mentioned very less into the memo and controversial. So, considering these unreasonable and unanswered questions from the memo a greater shareof the budget next year to reach public through advertising should not be passed. All of these facts should be seen first.

Votes
Average: 6 (2 votes)
Essay Categories
Essays by the user:

Comments

Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 261, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'years'' or 'year's'?
Suggestion: years'; year's
...e comparison is only made with the past years data which is clearly invalid. First...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 243, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[1]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'a year' or simply 'years'?
Suggestion: a year; years
... Coming to a conclusion just relying on a years poor performance having less number of ...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 436, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “As” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...d there is no point of negative review. As there is no clarification this point in...
^^
Line 7, column 281, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Hence,
...d to reach to greater number of people. Hence the content of the review were not reac...
^^^^^
Line 9, column 422, Rule ID: ADVERB_WORD_ORDER[1]
Message: The adverb 'Always' is usually not used at the beginning of a sentence.
...vie and they might also find it boring. Always, the initial hype of movie is created b...
^^^^^^
Line 11, column 263, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: didn't
...d and was lack to publics knowledge. He didnt forsee the other factors which are also...
^^^^^
Line 11, column 322, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...her factors which are also responsible. He mentioned very less into the memo and c...
^^

Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, hence, if, second, secondly, so, third, thirdly

Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments

Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 29.0 19.6327345309 148% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.9520958084 85% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 13.6137724551 88% => OK
Pronoun: 34.0 28.8173652695 118% => OK
Preposition: 65.0 55.5748502994 117% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 16.3942115768 43% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.

Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2326.0 2260.96107784 103% => OK
No of words: 469.0 441.139720559 106% => OK
Chars per words: 4.95948827292 5.12650576532 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.65364457471 4.56307096286 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.58229818563 2.78398813304 93% => OK
Unique words: 202.0 204.123752495 99% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.430703624733 0.468620217663 92% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 720.9 705.55239521 102% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK

A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 11.0 4.96107784431 222% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 5.0 8.76447105788 57% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.

Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 27.0 19.7664670659 137% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 22.8473053892 74% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 34.1725629761 57.8364921388 59% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 86.1481481481 119.503703932 72% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.3703703704 23.324526521 74% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.74074074074 5.70786347227 48% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 7.0 5.25449101796 133% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 8.20758483034 146% => 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: 0.238298165472 0.218282227539 109% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0647897640297 0.0743258471296 87% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0807226618194 0.0701772020484 115% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.135520586418 0.128457276422 105% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0856495182946 0.0628817314937 136% => OK

Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.6 14.3799401198 74% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 62.68 48.3550499002 130% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.7 12.197005988 71% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.19 12.5979740519 89% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.51 8.32208582834 90% => OK
difficult_words: 90.0 98.500998004 91% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.0 12.3882235529 57% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 8.8 11.1389221557 79% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => 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.

Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 3 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 6 2
No. of Sentences: 27 15
No. of Words: 470 350
No. of Characters: 2274 1500
No. of Different Words: 198 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.656 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.838 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.515 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 152 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 107 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 70 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 45 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 17.407 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 5.782 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.481 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.281 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.522 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.122 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 6 5