The author of the passage concludes that super screen production house should spend a significant amount of money for advertising purpose. This conclusion is flawed for numerous reasons. This argument fails to mention some key factors, on the basis of which it could be evaluated perfectly. To justify the conclusion, the author reasons that in spite of having quality movies, the viewers are reluctant to attend the movie show and this is substantiated by a dwindling number of audiences in that program. However, proper scrutiny of all possible evidence, it reveals that it provides little credible support towards the author's conclusion. Hence, the argument is inconsistent and unsubstantiated.
First of all, the author readily assumes that fewer people participated in superscreen produced movies in comparison with last year which is nothing but a mere assumption without any solid evidence. Actually, The term 'Few' is vague and ambiguous. It doesn't accurately represent the actual decrease rate of viewers. Besides, the author is failed to provide any specific information about the total number of audiences of previous years. So, it is quite inept to make a comparison without the exact viewer's information. Therefore, the argument would have been more convincing if the author explicitly provides the previous year's information.
Secondly, the author claims that the percentage of positive reviews made by the positive reviewers has been increased in comparison with other years. This is an unwarranted and unsupported claim as the term percentage is vague. For instance, 50 viewers among 100 give a positive review, it means 50% reviewer can claim that they give positive feedback about the movies. On the contrary, suppose, in the next year, the feedback has been taken from 50 people. Among them, 45 treated as positive outcomes. Hence, the percentage has been increased from 50% to 95 %. So, is it justified to make a comment that percentage of positive feedback increased without any details of the total number of the attendee? However, if the argument had provided the total number of viewers those who participate in the process of feedback, it would have been more convincing.
Finally, the author notes that 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 right now. The survey of evidence provides little credible supports of the author's opinions in several aspects but raises some skeptical questions. How can we correlate the quality of the movie and the lack of public awareness? It may happen that people's taste has been changed. To illustrate this, say superscreen production mainly focuses on scientific movies whereas young generations, as well as general people, involve in action genres. As a result, people lose interest and the number of audiences reduces.
Besides, the author suggests making a vigorous advertisement to reach the people. But this claim is totally faulty and unsupported. Moreover, the author doesn't provide any backdrop information regarding campaign like how much effective the campaign previously was and how much amount of money spend regarding such campaigns and how much people motivated by this campaign. Hence, these pieces of information would strengthen the author's conclusion.
In conclusion, the author's assumption is completely flawed. To accord with the author's opinions, the author should provide more concrete and cogent evidence like the previous year's audience information, the exact number of reviewers who participate in the review process, etc.
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 32 15
No. of Words: 568 350
No. of Characters: 2969 1500
No. of Different Words: 262 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.882 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.227 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.726 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 245 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 185 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 135 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 74 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 17.75 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.803 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.75 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.263 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.461 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.065 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 6 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 622, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...des little credible support towards the authors conclusion. Hence, the argument is inco...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 250, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...The term Few is vague and ambiguous. It doesnt accurately represent the actual decreas...
^^^^^^
Line 3, column 497, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'viewers'' or 'viewer's'?
Suggestion: viewers'; viewer's
... to make a comparison without the exact viewers information. Therefore, the argument wo...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 621, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'years'' or 'year's'?
Suggestion: years'; year's
...author explicitly provides the previous years information. Secondly, the author cl...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 296, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ong 100 give a positive review, it means 50% reviewer can claim that they give po...
^^
Line 9, column 154, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...y and unsupported. Moreover, the author doesnt provide any backdrop information regard...
^^^^^^
Line 9, column 333, Rule ID: MUCH_COUNTABLE[1]
Message: Use 'many' with countable nouns.
Suggestion: many
... spend regarding such campaigns and how much people motivated by this campaign. Henc...
^^^^
Line 9, column 429, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...ces of information would strengthen the authors conclusion. In conclusion, the autho...
^^^^^^^
Line 11, column 20, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...thors conclusion. In conclusion, the authors assumption is completely flawed. To acc...
^^^^^^^
Line 11, column 176, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'years'' or 'year's'?
Suggestion: years'; year's
...e and cogent evidence like the previous years audience information, the exact number ...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, besides, but, finally, first, hence, however, if, may, moreover, regarding, second, secondly, so, then, therefore, well, whereas, for instance, in conclusion, as a result, as well as, first of all, in spite of, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 19.6327345309 112% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.9520958084 69% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 11.1786427146 125% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 13.6137724551 110% => OK
Pronoun: 33.0 28.8173652695 115% => OK
Preposition: 71.0 55.5748502994 128% => OK
Nominalization: 23.0 16.3942115768 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3060.0 2260.96107784 135% => OK
No of words: 566.0 441.139720559 128% => OK
Chars per words: 5.40636042403 5.12650576532 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.87757670434 4.56307096286 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.82317099615 2.78398813304 101% => OK
Unique words: 276.0 204.123752495 135% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.487632508834 0.468620217663 104% => OK
syllable_count: 938.7 705.55239521 133% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 4.96107784431 202% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 18.0 8.76447105788 205% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 8.0 4.22255489022 189% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 32.0 19.7664670659 162% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 22.8473053892 74% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 55.4396842862 57.8364921388 96% => OK
Chars per sentence: 95.625 119.503703932 80% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.6875 23.324526521 76% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.375 5.70786347227 129% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 10.0 5.25449101796 190% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 15.0 8.20758483034 183% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 6.88822355289 160% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.67664670659 128% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.116647094351 0.218282227539 53% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0282387241917 0.0743258471296 38% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0424184440606 0.0701772020484 60% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0569276560827 0.128457276422 44% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0318937583749 0.0628817314937 51% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.9 14.3799401198 90% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 45.76 48.3550499002 95% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.197005988 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.8 12.5979740519 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.75 8.32208582834 105% => OK
difficult_words: 153.0 98.500998004 155% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 11.1389221557 79% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => 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.