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 an

It seems logical, at first glance, to agree with the advertising director's claim that to captivate more number of people towards the movie made by Super Screen movie company, they should augment their budget for advertising and diffusing awareness among more and more number of its customers. However, to completely evaluate his claim, we would need some significant evidences. It is possible that the claim could end up being weaker than it seems or it could actually be quite valid. To make that determination we would need some empirical evidences.
The first piece of evidence that we would need to evaluate the director's argument is the actual reason behind the attrition in number of people who prefers watching Super Screen movies. The director here posits that fewer people people attended last year and that could be only because they were not actually cognizant about those movies. However, it is viable to think that even if the people were well informed about the presence of those movies they did not go to watch it. They could have their own personal reason behind this. It is possible that most of the people just do not like that genre of movie. The movie might be a horror movie and people generally do not prefer to watch it because of personal inclinations. If the Super Screen movie will make a movie congruent with the interest of people, then they could easily attract those customers for business without squandering in advertising.
Another piece of evidence required to warrant the argument is about the exact decrease in number of people last year. It is feasible that the out of 100 people only two or three people did not went to watch the movie. Although this will being a decrease in percentage but such a token decrease will be inconsequential into making such hasty conclusions.
Even if the percentage decrease is huge last year, the director fails to dictate the exact percentage of positive reviews by the movie reviewers. It is plausible to think that there is not much difference in these percentage. It could be like, out of hundred reviewers, 50 of them did not like the movie and 51 liked the movie. Therefore, although the positive review percentage is high than the negative one, it is peripheral. It is injudicious to think that there movies are good and they should not use their budget in fixing the rating of their movies.
The author comes into such optimistic conclusions without reflecting upon these questions and details which makes his argument very tenuous and weak. Instead of spending lavishly in advertising, he should increase the level of his movies and also should do an insightful analysis of his customers likes and dislikes. He should consider these analysis while making his movie. Also, he should not be hasty into predicting the future of Super Screen movies by just looking at what happened last year. It is foolhardy to think that the situation that took place last year will be the same for next coming years also. Hence, the argument need many empirical evidences and details to be valid and justifiable.

Votes
Average: 2.6 (3 votes)
Essay Categories

Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 133, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...tivate more number of people towards the movie made by Super Screen movie company...
^^
Line 2, column 64, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'directors'' or 'director's'?
Suggestion: directors'; director's
...ence that we would need to evaluate the directors argument is the actual reason behind th...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 222, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: people
...es. The director here posits that fewer people people attended last year and that could be on...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 193, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[1]
Message: The verb 'did' requires the base form of the verb: 'go', 'wend'
Suggestion: go; wend
...people only two or three people did not went to watch the movie. Although this will ...
^^^^
Line 3, column 271, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... will being a decrease in percentage but such a token decrease will be inconseque...
^^
Line 4, column 208, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'this percentage' or 'these percentages'?
Suggestion: this percentage; these percentages
...nk that there is not much difference in these percentage. It could be like, out of hundred revie...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 337, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'this analysis' or 'these analyses'?
Suggestion: this analysis; these analyses
... likes and dislikes. He should consider these analysis while making his movie. Also, he should...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 608, Rule ID: ALSO_SENT_END[1]
Message: 'Also' is not used at the end of the sentence. Use 'as well' instead.
Suggestion: as well
... will be the same for next coming years also. Hence, the argument need many empirica...
^^^^

Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, first, hence, however, if, look, so, then, therefore, well, while

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

Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 26.0 19.6327345309 132% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 24.0 12.9520958084 185% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 11.1786427146 134% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 13.6137724551 118% => OK
Pronoun: 59.0 28.8173652695 205% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 65.0 55.5748502994 117% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 16.3942115768 73% => OK

Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2556.0 2260.96107784 113% => OK
No of words: 522.0 441.139720559 118% => OK
Chars per words: 4.89655172414 5.12650576532 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.77988695657 4.56307096286 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.51761457954 2.78398813304 90% => OK
Unique words: 234.0 204.123752495 115% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.448275862069 0.468620217663 96% => OK
syllable_count: 801.0 705.55239521 114% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK

A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 16.0 4.96107784431 323% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 6.0 8.76447105788 68% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK

Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 25.0 19.7664670659 126% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 49.4864183388 57.8364921388 86% => OK
Chars per sentence: 102.24 119.503703932 86% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.88 23.324526521 90% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.44 5.70786347227 60% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 8.0 5.25449101796 152% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.20758483034 134% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => 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: 0.182832102959 0.218282227539 84% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0501988807044 0.0743258471296 68% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0516617345433 0.0701772020484 74% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.101515615498 0.128457276422 79% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0479483044139 0.0628817314937 76% => OK

Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.1 14.3799401198 84% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 59.64 48.3550499002 123% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 12.197005988 81% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.14 12.5979740519 88% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.77 8.32208582834 93% => OK
difficult_words: 104.0 98.500998004 106% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 12.3882235529 97% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.9071856287 84% => OK
What are above readability scores?

---------------------

Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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: ??? out of 6
Category: Poor Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 25 15
No. of Words: 522 350
No. of Characters: 2510 1500
No. of Different Words: 224 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.78 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.808 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.452 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 166 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 112 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 90 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 49 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.88 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.962 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.6 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.291 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.291 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.137 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5