"The following is taken from a memo 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."
Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the recommendation and the argument on which it is based are reasonable. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the recommendation.
The strong assertion that the production company is planning to allocate a greater share of its budget for advertising as they received feedback from the public viewers last year, from a memo from the advertising director of the super screen movie production company is flawed since his assertion is not properly supported by relevant pieces of evidence. this makes his stance tenuous and misleads the readers. some of the problems with the passage is discussed in the following paragraphs with explanation about how the statement weakens and discusses how to strengthen the author's stance.
Firstly, the few people attended the super screen produced movie have given the reviews and turned out to be positive. And the conclusion was that there are no enough people knowing about super screen movies. But, this assertion is too strong since the people who have participated the review have not genuinely reviewed their experience. this will lead into a new development thus concluding that the budget is not the problem rather some external reasons will be the plausible cause for this situation. this can be strengthened by author asserting that the reviews from the people are taken in person.
Secondly, the problem lies not with the quality of our movies is a direct assertion from the author's side. this is a probable weakening since there is no evidence stating that the problem is with quality of the movie. author could have specified this by gathering information from the reviewers and presented showing some statistics like the percentage of people, dissatisfied by the movie quality. some of the evidences like these could have ameliorated his stance.
Thirdly, the author asserts that the public awareness is less outrightly in the passage. this is not supported by any of the statements. The money which is alloted for advertising will be a waste if they proceed further, if there are no clear evidence of the people's ignorance of this super movie production. The assertion clearly lacks statistical data from the existing public, saying the number of people who are not aware of the same.
In conclusion, the author should have bit more precise in what he asserts in the whole claim with phenomenal evidences, thereby causing no harm to his stance.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 10 15
No. of Words: 372 350
No. of Characters: 1864 1500
No. of Different Words: 178 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.392 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.011 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.588 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 141 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 104 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 72 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 49 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 37.2 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 24.547 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.6 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.399 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.691 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.093 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 356, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: This
...pported by relevant pieces of evidence. this makes his stance tenuous and misleads t...
^^^^
Line 1, column 412, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Some
...tance tenuous and misleads the readers. some of the problems with the passage is dis...
^^^^
Line 1, column 412, Rule ID: SOME_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'some'.
Suggestion: some
...tance tenuous and misleads the readers. some of the problems with the passage is discussed ...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 576, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...ens and discusses how to strengthen the authors stance. Firstly, the few people atte...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 340, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: This
...ot genuinely reviewed their experience. this will lead into a new development thus c...
^^^^
Line 3, column 506, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: This
...the plausible cause for this situation. this can be strengthened by author asserting...
^^^^
Line 7, column 108, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: This
...direct assertion from the authors side. this is a probable weakening since there is ...
^^^^
Line 7, column 219, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Author
...e problem is with quality of the movie. author could have specified this by gathering ...
^^^^^^
Line 7, column 400, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Some
...ple, dissatisfied by the movie quality. some of the evidences like these could have ...
^^^^
Line 7, column 400, Rule ID: SOME_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'some'.
Suggestion: some
...ple, dissatisfied by the movie quality. some of the evidences like these could have amelior...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 11, column 90, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: This
...ness is less outrightly in the passage. this is not supported by any of the statemen...
^^^^
Line 11, column 260, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'peoples'' or 'people's'?
Suggestion: peoples'; people's
..., if there are no clear evidence of the peoples ignorance of this super movie productio...
^^^^^^^
Line 11, column 440, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...f people who are not aware of the same. In conclusion, the author should have bi...
^^^^
Line 13, column 39, Rule ID: HAVE_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Use past participle here: 'bitten'.
Suggestion: bitten
... In conclusion, the author should have bit more precise in what he asserts in the ...
^^^
Line 17, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...eby causing no harm to his stance.
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, firstly, if, second, secondly, so, then, third, thirdly, thus, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 19.6327345309 112% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 12.9520958084 54% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 11.1786427146 45% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 9.0 13.6137724551 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 26.0 28.8173652695 90% => OK
Preposition: 49.0 55.5748502994 88% => OK
Nominalization: 18.0 16.3942115768 110% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1921.0 2260.96107784 85% => OK
No of words: 372.0 441.139720559 84% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.16397849462 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.39173103935 4.56307096286 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.64569668504 2.78398813304 95% => OK
Unique words: 186.0 204.123752495 91% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.5 0.468620217663 107% => OK
syllable_count: 590.4 705.55239521 84% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 19.7664670659 86% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 68.9317399685 57.8364921388 119% => OK
Chars per sentence: 113.0 119.503703932 95% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.8823529412 23.324526521 94% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.17647058824 5.70786347227 91% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 15.0 5.25449101796 285% => Less language errors wanted.
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => OK
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: 0.230194223135 0.218282227539 105% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0735732140833 0.0743258471296 99% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0872007163049 0.0701772020484 124% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.123875381857 0.128457276422 96% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0774525121626 0.0628817314937 123% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.8 14.3799401198 96% => OK
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: 12.65 12.5979740519 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.88 8.32208582834 107% => OK
difficult_words: 99.0 98.500998004 101% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 12.3882235529 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.