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.
This passage claims that Super Screen Movie should spend more money on advertising next year because it help them to rach the public. This logic has several flaw, and, therefore is not convinsing. The logic of the argument is compromised because the author fails to mention some important aspects, uses incorrect analogy, relies on numerous unsupported assumptions, suggests groundless cause-effect reasoning.
First of all, the author claims that people do not know exactly about the quality of their movies. When makin such a statement the author assumes that the problem lies not with the quality of their movies but with public's lack of awaewness that their good qualty of movie available. Indeed, this argumentation can seem logical at first glance. However, the author fails to consider that people know about good quality but they don't like the conten of movie. Therefore, the author's argumentation is doubtful because it contains a major flaw in reasoning. If the author had provied more relevant information his argument would have been more convincing.
Second, the argument suggests that they have good qualitu of movies because of increasing of positive reviews.Again, this point may seem reasonable and justified to inattentive reader. Nevertheless, a careful analysis reveal a major weakness in the author's argumentation. The author ignores to possiblity that there are a lot of bed reviws who don't want to share their opinion. This problem could have been avoided if the author answered on question about precentage of all viwers and positive and negative viewrs.
Finally, the argument point out that just only one way to reach people, just only by advertising. However, it may be the case of content or film's quality. But the author totally ignores to consider such possipility in the passage This problem could have been avoided if the author provide comprehensive analysis all fact and factors relevant to the matter.
In conclusion, the argument contains several inconsistencies: unsupported assumption, omission of some important facts, incorrect analogy. The author reasoning, therefore is doubtful and hardly convincing.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 18 15
No. of Words: 338 350
No. of Characters: 1770 1500
No. of Different Words: 177 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.288 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.237 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.702 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 141 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 106 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 68 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 40 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 18.778 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.383 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.833 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.342 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.548 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.049 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 105, Rule ID: IT_VBZ[1]
Message: Did you mean 'helps'?
Suggestion: helps
...ney on advertising next year because it help them to rach the public. This logic has...
^^^^
Line 1, column 150, Rule ID: MANY_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun flaw seems to be countable; consider using: 'several flaws'.
Suggestion: several flaws
...them to rach the public. This logic has several flaw, and, therefore is not convinsing. The ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 428, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
...people know about good quality but they dont like the conten of movie. Therefore, th...
^^^^
Line 5, column 474, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...ike the conten of movie. Therefore, the authors argumentation is doubtful because it co...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 555, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “If” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
... it contains a major flaw in reasoning. If the author had provied more relevant in...
^^
Line 9, column 111, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: Again
...cause of increasing of positive reviews.Again, this point may seem reasonable and jus...
^^^^^
Line 9, column 250, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...analysis reveal a major weakness in the authors argumentation. The author ignores to po...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 345, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
... that there are a lot of bed reviws who dont want to share their opinion. This probl...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, however, if, may, nevertheless, second, so, therefore, in conclusion, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 19.6327345309 46% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 12.9520958084 54% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 13.6137724551 73% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 25.0 28.8173652695 87% => OK
Preposition: 39.0 55.5748502994 70% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 16.3942115768 79% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1832.0 2260.96107784 81% => OK
No of words: 335.0 441.139720559 76% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.46865671642 5.12650576532 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.27820116611 4.56307096286 94% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.83872592759 2.78398813304 102% => OK
Unique words: 179.0 204.123752495 88% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.534328358209 0.468620217663 114% => OK
syllable_count: 560.7 705.55239521 79% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.22255489022 24% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 19.7664670659 91% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 22.8473053892 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 47.9187841722 57.8364921388 83% => OK
Chars per sentence: 101.777777778 119.503703932 85% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.6111111111 23.324526521 80% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.72222222222 5.70786347227 100% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 8.0 5.25449101796 152% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.20758483034 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 6.88822355289 145% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.67664670659 86% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0549186266466 0.218282227539 25% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0173996808269 0.0743258471296 23% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0408233928802 0.0701772020484 58% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0312202388942 0.128457276422 24% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.035393682534 0.0628817314937 56% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.6 14.3799401198 95% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 44.75 48.3550499002 93% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.197005988 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.45 12.5979740519 115% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.58 8.32208582834 103% => OK
difficult_words: 86.0 98.500998004 87% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.1389221557 83% => 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.