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."
The argument is flawed due to multiple reasons as follows.
Firstly, the argument assumes that the decrement in number of viewers is due to quality of the movie. In reality it is not necessary that the quality of the movie should be proportional to the number of viewers. It has been seen the Oscar winning movies sometimes don't get the number of viewers compared to low quality meretrecious movies. The attendance of the viewers is dependent on number of factors, that includes the trending topics which might be controversial. The entertainment factor which might include having famous "star" actors cast.
The argument is explains that the quality of the movies produced by Super Screen Production is good due to positive reviwes for the the specific movies of last year. The argument only discusses the positive reviews of the specific movies not all movies. It is possible that the few movies had positive reviews showing high quality but most of the other movies had bad quality. The argument fails to explain the sources of the reviews. There are multiple different sources available which reviews movies differently and it can be dramatic difference. Hence the assumption of good quality from certain sources would not justify the accurate quality of the movies. It is possible that the reviewing company might be biased towards this production house.
The argument assumes that the lack of budget for advertisement is the reason of less viewers for the movies. But it does not explain how the advertisement budget was utilized. It is possible that the advertisement money was spent on lavish parties to spread the awareness which did not work well. Since maybe now people rely more on online advertisement like YouTube, facebook videos on social media. We need to understand the target audience and their habits to spend the advertising money. If the topic of the movie modern and trending among young people then advertisement should be done to attract young people. Hence instead of focusing on improving the budget on advertisement focus on improving the way of advertisement might work efficiently.
There are numerous assumptions weakening the argument which will not increase the number of viewers, such as focusing on quality than trending topics, specific movie reviews and not focusing on the way of advertisement rather than the amount of money.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 21 15
No. of Words: 387 350
No. of Characters: 1947 1500
No. of Different Words: 177 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.435 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.031 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.681 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 157 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 113 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 69 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 34 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 18.429 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.687 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.381 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.329 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.539 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.142 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 265, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
...seen the Oscar winning movies sometimes dont get the number of viewers compared to l...
^^^^
Line 9, column 1, 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.
...ous 'star' actors cast. The argument is explains that the quality o...
^^^
Line 9, column 129, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: the
...ion is good due to positive reviwes for the the specific movies of last year. The argum...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 129, Rule ID: DT_DT[1]
Message: Maybe you need to remove one determiner so that only 'the' or 'the' is left.
Suggestion: the; the
...ion is good due to positive reviwes for the the specific movies of last year. The argum...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 167, 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.
...r the the specific movies of last year. The argument only discusses the positive re...
^^^
Line 9, column 551, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Hence,
...ntly and it can be dramatic difference. Hence the assumption of good quality from cer...
^^^^^
Line 13, column 81, Rule ID: FEWER_LESS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'fewer'? The noun viewers is countable.
Suggestion: fewer
...dget for advertisement is the reason of less viewers for the movies. But it does not...
^^^^
Line 21, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... rather than the amount of money.
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, firstly, hence, if, may, so, then, well, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.6327345309 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.9520958084 77% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 11.1786427146 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 13.0 13.6137724551 95% => OK
Pronoun: 18.0 28.8173652695 62% => OK
Preposition: 48.0 55.5748502994 86% => OK
Nominalization: 23.0 16.3942115768 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2015.0 2260.96107784 89% => OK
No of words: 386.0 441.139720559 88% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.22020725389 5.12650576532 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.43248042346 4.56307096286 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.78000037855 2.78398813304 100% => OK
Unique words: 180.0 204.123752495 88% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.466321243523 0.468620217663 100% => OK
syllable_count: 619.2 705.55239521 88% => 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: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => 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: 21.0 19.7664670659 106% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 22.8473053892 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 40.195835797 57.8364921388 69% => OK
Chars per sentence: 95.9523809524 119.503703932 80% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.380952381 23.324526521 79% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.85714285714 5.70786347227 50% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 8.0 5.25449101796 152% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.20758483034 122% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => 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: 0.166360292639 0.218282227539 76% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0461394868588 0.0743258471296 62% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0509975498359 0.0701772020484 73% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0754025583627 0.128457276422 59% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0568811615712 0.0628817314937 90% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.3 14.3799401198 86% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 48.3550499002 110% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 12.197005988 84% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.0 12.5979740519 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.09 8.32208582834 97% => OK
difficult_words: 87.0 98.500998004 88% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 12.3882235529 69% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.1389221557 83% => 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.