"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

Essay topics:

"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 argument in hand states that to increase the attendance of the audience to attend the movies produced by the Super Screen Movie production company the company should allocate greater amount of mony for the advertising to reach maximum audience. However, the argument is based in certain fallacious assumptions and in order to confirm the argument few important questions should be answered by the author.

Firstly, the author is not mentioning any exact value of the people who have attended the movies in last year and he only cite the reference of their marketing team as well as he is mentioning the vague term that is "fewer", we dont know exactly how much fewer the audience is ? it may be very large difference or may be a very small difference in the number. So, only on that basis we can not conclude the number is reducing significantly or not. Therefore, author should mentioned exactly how many people watched the movie both last year as well as at least two ,three previous years.

Secondly, the author is mentioning about the positive reviews of specific movies and generalizing those positive reviews for all movies. However, It is all ready mentioned that the good reviews are only for specific movies and not all the movies. It may possible that only very few movies are good and gets a positive comments and major number of movies are bad and therefore people did not watched them. The author is also assuming that the reviews are not reaching to the more people, but It may possible that the review is reaching to the people but still people dont want to watched the movie because of its bad content or it may also possible that the specific movies, which got good reviews are watched by many people. Therefore, it is essential to answer that how many movies got positive reviews ?, what is the number of people who watched those movies? and also whether it is rally happening that the reviews are not reaching to the public effectively?

In conclusion I can say that in order to be true the given argument should consider the questions mentioned above. Only after answering those questions one can evaluate whether the recommendation given in the argument is really essential or not.

Votes
Average: 6.3 (3 votes)
Essay Categories
Essays by the user:

Comments

Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 123, Rule ID: HE_VERB_AGR[3]
Message: The pronoun 'he' must be used with a third-person verb: 'cites'.
Suggestion: cites
...ded the movies in last year and he only cite the reference of their marketing team a...
^^^^
Line 5, column 239, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
...ague term that is 'fewer', we dont know exactly how much fewer the audienc...
^^^^
Line 5, column 290, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: It
...xactly how much fewer the audience is ? it may be very large difference or may be ...
^^
Line 5, column 551, Rule ID: BOTH_AS_WELL_AS[1]
Message: Probable usage error. Use 'and' after 'both'.
Suggestion: and
...people watched the movie both last year as well as at least two ,three previous years. ...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 574, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma, but not before the comma
Suggestion: ,
...e both last year as well as at least two ,three previous years. Secondly, the...
^^
Line 9, column 392, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[1]
Message: The verb 'did' requires the base form of the verb: 'watch'
Suggestion: watch
...es are bad and therefore people did not watched them. The author is also assuming that ...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 567, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
...reaching to the people but still people dont want to watched the movie because of i...
^^^^
Line 9, column 608, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ont want to watched the movie because of its bad content or it may also possible ...
^^
Line 9, column 864, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: And
...ber of people who watched those movies? and also whether it is rally happening that...
^^^

Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, however, if, may, really, second, secondly, so, still, therefore, well, at least, in conclusion, as well as

Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments

Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 24.0 19.6327345309 122% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.9520958084 93% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 11.1786427146 125% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 13.6137724551 103% => OK
Pronoun: 29.0 28.8173652695 101% => OK
Preposition: 34.0 55.5748502994 61% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 16.3942115768 85% => OK

Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1856.0 2260.96107784 82% => OK
No of words: 380.0 441.139720559 86% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.88421052632 5.12650576532 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.41515443553 4.56307096286 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.59786123189 2.78398813304 93% => OK
Unique words: 166.0 204.123752495 81% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.436842105263 0.468620217663 93% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 585.0 705.55239521 83% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK

A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Article: 5.0 8.76447105788 57% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.70958083832 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.22255489022 24% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.

Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 19.7664670659 71% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 27.0 22.8473053892 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 71.8790438082 57.8364921388 124% => OK
Chars per sentence: 132.571428571 119.503703932 111% => OK
Words per sentence: 27.1428571429 23.324526521 116% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.57142857143 5.70786347227 168% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 9.0 5.25449101796 171% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.20758483034 122% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.88822355289 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.67664670659 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?

Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.134419749661 0.218282227539 62% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0484862296506 0.0743258471296 65% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0585978082854 0.0701772020484 83% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0793680416822 0.128457276422 62% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0541666159852 0.0628817314937 86% => OK

Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.1 14.3799401198 105% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 52.53 48.3550499002 109% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.6 12.197005988 103% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.32 12.5979740519 90% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.72 8.32208582834 93% => OK
difficult_words: 66.0 98.500998004 67% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 17.0 12.3882235529 137% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.8 11.1389221557 115% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => 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.

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: 12 15
No. of Words: 380 350
No. of Characters: 1793 1500
No. of Different Words: 159 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.415 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.718 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.457 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 132 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 92 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 65 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 31 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 31.667 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 16.131 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.917 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.398 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.657 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.198 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5