"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 Super Screen Movie Production Company stated that there has been a display of a reduction in the amount of viewers for their movies, but a burgeon of positive reviews. The company procceds to aver that, due to the negative correlation between amount of viewes and the amount of positive reviews, the public is unaware of the good quality they portray in their movies and put forth a proposal of a higher allocation for their marketing. However, before the proposal can be properly assessed, it is essential that the conclusion be fastidiously analyzed, the implications be methodically addressed, and the answers to three questions be fully obtained.
Firstly, is the basis of measurement the corporation analyzes their stastistics on accurate? The company adopts an apple to oranges comparision and is compares the number of viewers to the rate of positive reviews. This is not a valid measurement as the number of viewers previously compared to the number of positive reviews could differ significantly from those of the current ones. For instance, if there were 1000 viewers in the last year and 100 of those gave positive reviews, that incorporates 10% of the audience. However, if the current year only consisted of 2 viewers and just one of them gave a positive review, then that consists of 50% of the audience. While the rate of positive reviews drastically increased, clearly these numbers are a fatuos basis of measurement. How can the company deduce that due to one person's positive review, their quality is indeed superior and blame the society's lack of awareness for its wanting of viewers. If this situation is valid, then the original assumption is drastically attenuated.
Secondly, is the quality the reason or potential reason why people have stopped watching movies? The company clearly refuses the possibility of their quality being inferior and turn the blame on the lack of awareness because of the decrease in viewership. The quality of the movie, rather it be superior or inferior, might have nothing to do with the arid audience. Perhaps the viewers left because the expenses revolving around watching these movies were becoming less frugal. Or perhaps 60% of the audience have moved to another city without this corporation. If this scenario holds water, then the primary supposition is significantly deteriorated.
Finally, the company presicely mentions that positive reviews of specific movies have increased. What are these specific movies and how to they dwell within the viewership universe? It could be that these movies were an aberrant genre or a just a disparate movie. It could have been an outlier and portrayed to be significantly interesting compared to their other work. Basing the data on merely specific movie reviews shows to be ineffectual. The company needs to compare such reviews throughout their work; they need to include both the good and bad movies. If this is true, then the proposal induced by the company is severly weakened.
In conclusion, the original proposal is significantly blemished due to the copious unjustified presumptions. If the company can provide adequate evidence, cogent reasoning to corroborate the claim, and sufficient answers to the stated questions, then the further explication and analysis to the suggested proposal might be possible.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
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: 26 15
No. of Words: 534 350
No. of Characters: 2728 1500
No. of Different Words: 243 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.807 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.109 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.767 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 219 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 181 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 115 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 59 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.538 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.354 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.5 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.279 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.483 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.088 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 142, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
...amount of viewers for their movies, but a burgeon of positive reviews. The company procce...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 822, Rule ID: ONE_PLURAL[1]
Message: Don't use the numeral 'one' with plural words. Did you mean 'one person', 'a person', or simply 'persons'?
Suggestion: one person; a person; persons
... How can the company deduce that due to one persons positive review, their quality is indee...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 293, Rule ID: IT_VBZ[1]
Message: Did you mean 'is'?
Suggestion: is
...ip. The quality of the movie, rather it be superior or inferior, might have nothin...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, firstly, however, if, second, secondly, so, then, well, while, for instance, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 30.0 19.6327345309 153% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.9520958084 69% => OK
Conjunction : 18.0 11.1786427146 161% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 13.6137724551 59% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 36.0 28.8173652695 125% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 65.0 55.5748502994 117% => OK
Nominalization: 19.0 16.3942115768 116% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2805.0 2260.96107784 124% => OK
No of words: 534.0 441.139720559 121% => OK
Chars per words: 5.25280898876 5.12650576532 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.80712388197 4.56307096286 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.85541963382 2.78398813304 103% => OK
Unique words: 251.0 204.123752495 123% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.470037453184 0.468620217663 100% => OK
syllable_count: 891.9 705.55239521 126% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 8.0 2.70958083832 295% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 4.0 1.67365269461 239% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 26.0 19.7664670659 132% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 49.1044804473 57.8364921388 85% => OK
Chars per sentence: 107.884615385 119.503703932 90% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.5384615385 23.324526521 88% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.26923076923 5.70786347227 75% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 16.0 8.20758483034 195% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.88822355289 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.0724610367337 0.218282227539 33% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0219539095256 0.0743258471296 30% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.033396151896 0.0701772020484 48% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0387066565675 0.128457276422 30% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0246040123801 0.0628817314937 39% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.6 14.3799401198 95% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 42.72 48.3550499002 88% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.197005988 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.17 12.5979740519 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.86 8.32208582834 106% => OK
difficult_words: 143.0 98.500998004 145% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 19.0 12.3882235529 153% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 16.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.