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 question 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.
In the prompt, it is claimed that, the reason for less people watching super screen produced movies is not because tehy are of bad quality, but there is not enough awareness about their movies. The evidence given for this, is that, there were many positive reviews about last years movies, though not many watched them. There are lot of unstated assumptions, which the argument depends on. Only by assessing them, can we evaluate the recommendation of increasing the budget for advertisement.
Firstly, is the report from the marketing department contains information about the number people who watched all around the globe or with in the local area? It is possible that they collected the viwership record from only the local theatres, and not from the theatres all aroung the globe. Maybe the local theatres did not produced enough shows or cancelled bookings for a few shows because of some financial issues. If that is true, then the report is not representative enough. In order to get answers for this, a copy of the report is necessary, so that it is possible to check the location of the theatres where the information was collected.
Secondly, are the positive reviews from people who have film knowledge or people who have seen a lot of movies ? It is possible that people who gave positive reviews are ones, who have always seen bad movies which are locally produced. Maybe the quality of the film is acceptable to them, but not to a wider audience. Maybe the movie was not good enough to compete with other great movies produced last year. In order to confirm the true quality of the film, it is required that they getsuggestions from film critics. If the above stated scenarios are true, then the quality of the film cannot be accepted as good.
Will increasing the budget on advertisements gain pubilicity for the movie? Maybe the previous year movies did have enough publicity, but still did not wish watch the movie, maybe because, the producer did not have a good track record of producing good movies. Maybe the people had a pre conceived notion that, Super screen shall only make movies for profit, and for entertaining the people. Maybe the movies they produced are not liked by the majority of the movie watchers. It is possible that their movies are based stories which are not pragmatic enough. If this is the case, then the producers should produce movies which the audience shall like, and not make movies for profit. In this case, it is not recommended to increased the budget on advertisements.
Thus the above questions are to be answered to better evaluate the argument and the recommendation provided.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 2.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 23 15
No. of Words: 449 350
No. of Characters: 2130 1500
No. of Different Words: 181 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.603 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.744 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.493 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 145 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 94 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 72 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 35 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 19.522 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.378 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.435 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.308 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.515 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.121 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 51, Rule ID: FEWER_LESS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'fewer'? The noun people is countable.
Suggestion: fewer
...mpt, it is claimed that, the reason for less people watching super screen produced m...
^^^^
Line 5, column 326, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[1]
Message: The verb 'did' requires the base form of the verb: 'produce'
Suggestion: produce
...globe. Maybe the local theatres did not produced enough shows or cancelled bookings for ...
^^^^^^^^
Line 13, column 393, 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.
...rofit, and for entertaining the people. Maybe the movies they produced are not liked ...
^^^^^
Line 17, column 1, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
...ased the budget on advertisements. Thus the above questions are to be answered ...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, firstly, if, may, second, secondly, so, still, then, thus
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 31.0 19.6327345309 158% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 12.9520958084 46% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 19.0 13.6137724551 140% => OK
Pronoun: 29.0 28.8173652695 101% => OK
Preposition: 45.0 55.5748502994 81% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 16.3942115768 73% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2215.0 2260.96107784 98% => OK
No of words: 449.0 441.139720559 102% => OK
Chars per words: 4.93318485523 5.12650576532 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.60321845022 4.56307096286 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.56982393594 2.78398813304 92% => OK
Unique words: 198.0 204.123752495 97% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.440979955457 0.468620217663 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 684.0 705.55239521 97% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 4.0 8.76447105788 46% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 6.0 1.67365269461 358% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 19.7664670659 116% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 35.1820541984 57.8364921388 61% => OK
Chars per sentence: 96.3043478261 119.503703932 81% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.5217391304 23.324526521 84% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.0 5.70786347227 53% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 14.0 8.20758483034 171% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.88822355289 73% => 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: 0.227006718813 0.218282227539 104% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0665056900201 0.0743258471296 89% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0572931255026 0.0701772020484 82% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.10804689605 0.128457276422 84% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.061590840372 0.0628817314937 98% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.6 14.3799401198 81% => 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: 11.31 12.5979740519 90% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.78 8.32208582834 93% => OK
difficult_words: 91.0 98.500998004 92% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.9071856287 84% => 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.