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 above argument is an abstract from a memo written by the advertising director of the Super Screen Movie Production Company. Their decision to invest more on advertising is backed up by their claim that fewer people have attended their movies in the last few years only because they ware not aware of the good quality movies that were available. The above argument might seem to be cogent in the first glance but has several unanswered questions that weakens their decision.
Firstly, The author mentioned that some of the movies from their production company were positively reviewed by movie reviewers. There is no information provided about these reviewers or how their general reviews are. Maybe these reviewers give a great review for any movie. The author mentioned that the percentage of positive review has been increased in the past few years but did not give information about the earlier percentage. If a percentage of six has increased to eight, Its still a low percentage to attract people. More information about their reviews and reviewers would be useful.
Secondly, The reason for declined people attendance would have been a better production company with better movies. A new production company with better cast and more popular genre might have attracted people to them and resulted in lower attendance fo Super Screen Production Company. These factors have not been considered by the author while coming up with a reason for their loss.
Thirdly, There is no information given about their change in quality of movies and the author assumes that their movie quality remained unchanged only because they had a increased percentage of positive reviews. An increased positive review may be a result of increased number of movies with a decreased movie quality. Producing hundreds of movies every year might result in overall increased positive review because at least a few reviewers may have a good opinion about these movies. But this would not lead to increased attendance as there is a decrease in their movie quality.
Lastly, The author mentioned that fewer people attend their movies this year when compared to past few years. But no information was provided about their earlier years attendance. It might be the case that, Their attendance in the last few years was also low and as years passed the reputation of these movies dissipated among people and fewer people attending their movies every year until the production company had noticed the least attendance this year.
The justification for their decision does not seem valid as there is no statistical information provided about their reviews. Better survey among their movie critics, reviewes, general audience would have been better to know the actual reason for declined attendance this year.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: ??? out of 6
Category: Poor Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 21 15
No. of Words: 451 350
No. of Characters: 2296 1500
No. of Different Words: 181 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.608 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.091 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.491 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 168 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 116 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 81 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 55 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.476 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.09 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.619 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.341 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.598 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.11 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 6 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 9, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...at weakens their decision. Firstly, The author mentioned that some of the mo...
^^
Line 5, column 37, Rule ID: SOME_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'some'.
Suggestion: some
... Firstly, The author mentioned that some of the movies from their production company we...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 13, column 169, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'an' instead of 'a' if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g. 'an article', 'an hour'
Suggestion: an
...emained unchanged only because they had a increased percentage of positive review...
^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, if, lastly, may, second, secondly, so, still, third, thirdly, while, at least
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 19.6327345309 97% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.9520958084 77% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 11.1786427146 98% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 13.6137724551 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 40.0 28.8173652695 139% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 55.0 55.5748502994 99% => OK
Nominalization: 24.0 16.3942115768 146% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2355.0 2260.96107784 104% => OK
No of words: 451.0 441.139720559 102% => OK
Chars per words: 5.22172949002 5.12650576532 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.60833598836 4.56307096286 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.53976588782 2.78398813304 91% => OK
Unique words: 182.0 204.123752495 89% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.40354767184 0.468620217663 86% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 738.9 705.55239521 105% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
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: 21.0 19.7664670659 106% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 53.5909594027 57.8364921388 93% => OK
Chars per sentence: 112.142857143 119.503703932 94% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.4761904762 23.324526521 92% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.95238095238 5.70786347227 87% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 8.20758483034 158% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.67664670659 21% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.224009877545 0.218282227539 103% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0828725398692 0.0743258471296 111% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0987066142903 0.0701772020484 141% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.132082029398 0.128457276422 103% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0748979501152 0.0628817314937 119% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.9 14.3799401198 97% => 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: 13.0 12.5979740519 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.44 8.32208582834 89% => OK
difficult_words: 79.0 98.500998004 80% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 12.3882235529 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => 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.