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
The following argument is flawed for numerous reasons. Primarily, it is based on the unwarranted assumption that, if public would have been aware about the good quality movies available, they would attend the Super-Screen produced movies, rendering its main conclusion that, Super Screen should allocate a great share of its budget next year for reaching the public through advertising, invalid.
Firstly, the writer mentions about a recent report from its marketing department, addressesing the issue that fewer people attended Super Screen- produced movies, during the past year, than in any other year. The argument leaves many unanswered questions. What was the recent report's primary concern? How many questions in the report included questions regarding the Super Screen movies? Does the report take into account the population change during the past years and then came to that conclusion? Had the argument provided answers to the above questions, even then, the argument further needs to consider the primary reason for the decline.
Additionally, the argument claims without evidence about the increase in percentage of positive reviews by movie reviewers, about specific Super Screen movies. Here, the writer fails to acknowledge the fact that, the percentage of positive reviews many have increased as the viewers with negative reviews would have already stopped attending those movies. Alongwith this, there may have been a less number of viewers commenting about their reviews in the past years than in the last year. Or the past movies would have been less interesting than the latest one.
To further prove his point, he assumes that the contents of these reviews are not reaching the prospective audience, hence, causing the decline of viewers. There has been no evidence, proving this case. Furthermore, he concludes that the problem lies not with the quality of movies but with the public's lack of awareness, regarding the availablity of good quality movies. The arguement is still lacking, as the author fails to justifies how the quality of movies produced last year was good, or better than previous years. Also, without addressing the public, how he concluded that the primary reason is lack of awarness. The viewers might be aware about the recent movie availability, like they were in the past few years. It is possible that the quality of the movie is the reason for viewers aversions towards those movies, and hence, resulted in the decline.
In sum, the author has failed to make a convincing argument because of lack of statistical data and unwarranted assumptions. The argument would have been strengthened, had the author provided evidence regarding the facts like, percentage of populace change, reason for increase in positive reviews, quality of movies produced, etcetera.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 2.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 21 15
No. of Words: 443 350
No. of Characters: 2303 1500
No. of Different Words: 206 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.588 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.199 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.5 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 182 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 133 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: 21.095 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.396 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.571 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.325 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.529 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.111 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 126, Rule ID: IF_WOULD_HAVE_VBN[1]
Message: Did you mean 'had been'?
Suggestion: had been
... unwarranted assumption that, if public would have been aware about the good quality movies ava...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 82, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...nt report from its marketing department, addressesing the issue that fewer people...
^^
Line 13, column 428, Rule ID: TO_NON_BASE[1]
Message: The verb after "to" should be in the base form: 'justify'.
Suggestion: justify
...s still lacking, as the author fails to justifies how the quality of movies produced last...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, furthermore, hence, if, may, regarding, so, still, then, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 19.6327345309 81% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 12.9520958084 62% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 11.1786427146 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 9.0 13.6137724551 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 26.0 28.8173652695 90% => OK
Preposition: 61.0 55.5748502994 110% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 16.3942115768 91% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2389.0 2260.96107784 106% => OK
No of words: 443.0 441.139720559 100% => OK
Chars per words: 5.3927765237 5.12650576532 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.58776254615 4.56307096286 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.59371580326 2.78398813304 93% => OK
Unique words: 221.0 204.123752495 108% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.498871331828 0.468620217663 106% => OK
syllable_count: 722.7 705.55239521 102% => 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: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.22255489022 166% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 19.7664670659 106% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 68.6360145575 57.8364921388 119% => OK
Chars per sentence: 113.761904762 119.503703932 95% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.0952380952 23.324526521 90% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.61904761905 5.70786347227 81% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 6.88822355289 145% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.67664670659 43% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.26496229088 0.218282227539 121% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0761258699554 0.0743258471296 102% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0962552057859 0.0701772020484 137% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.146027123975 0.128457276422 114% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.104012011315 0.0628817314937 165% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.5 14.3799401198 101% => 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: 13.98 12.5979740519 111% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.31 8.32208582834 100% => OK
difficult_words: 102.0 98.500998004 104% => OK
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: 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.