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 wheter 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.
In this memo, the advertising director of the Super Screen Movie Production Company suggests to allocate a greater share of the budget to the advertising. Although this memo seems credible at first glance, but few questions lead me to the unsoundness of this argument.
First, the director should answer to the question about the soundness of the report that he suggests. Past year is the only year considered that fewer people attended Super Screen-produced movies. Since it is only one year, it may be an abeyance. For the surer conclusion, the director should suggest the continuously negative data of at least five years. In addition, the real number of the positive review by movie reviewers may be marginal. In the memo, not the accurate number, but the percentage of the positive reviews is the only thing mentioned.
Second, the director also needs to answer to the question about the credibility of the positive reviews. The positive reviews suggested in here is only the review from the specific Super Screen movies, which implies that it is not about the whole movie from the company. Thus, it is hard to be generalized as the positive opinion among publics to the whole movie. In addition, public's opinion is so diverse that it cannot be dichotomized by positive and negative opinions only. Let us assume the situation that the negative opinions about the movie are extremely negative and the positive opinions about the movie are acceptably positive, but the positive opinions are little frequent than the negative opinion. In this case, it is hard to be interpreted as the positive public opinion toward the movie.
Lastly, questions about reliability of the public's lack of awareness should be answered as well. Even if the decreasing tendency of the attended people is true, it may due to other factors such as adverse economic condition, not due to the lack of the advertisement. In addition, it is possible that the problem is not in the budget for the advertisement, but in the method for the advertisement. If the company do their advertisement in wrong place, then it would be better to use their budget not in the additional advertisement, but in the consulting.
In brief, this argument is not credible in many aspects. To bolster the argument, the director should answer to the aforementioned questions: soundness of the report, positive reviews, and the public's lack of awareness.
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: 20 15
No. of Words: 400 350
No. of Characters: 1959 1500
No. of Different Words: 165 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.472 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.898 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.753 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 143 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 111 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 90 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 37 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.535 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.75 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.335 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.561 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.144 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 85, Rule ID: ADMIT_ENJOY_VB[1]
Message: This verb is used with the gerund form: 'suggests allocating'.
Suggestion: suggests allocating
...e Super Screen Movie Production Company suggests to allocate a greater share of the budget to the ad...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, if, lastly, may, second, so, then, thus, well, at least, in addition, in brief, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 19.6327345309 112% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.9520958084 69% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 11.1786427146 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 13.6137724551 51% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 25.0 28.8173652695 87% => OK
Preposition: 58.0 55.5748502994 104% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 16.3942115768 104% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2017.0 2260.96107784 89% => OK
No of words: 400.0 441.139720559 91% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.0425 5.12650576532 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.472135955 4.56307096286 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.85744203791 2.78398813304 103% => OK
Unique words: 177.0 204.123752495 87% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.4425 0.468620217663 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 648.0 705.55239521 92% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 6.0 1.67365269461 358% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 10.0 4.22255489022 237% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 19.7664670659 101% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 42.2088853205 57.8364921388 73% => OK
Chars per sentence: 100.85 119.503703932 84% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.0 23.324526521 86% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.25 5.70786347227 92% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.88822355289 131% => 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: 0.198545713272 0.218282227539 91% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0609762712969 0.0743258471296 82% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0945611485865 0.0701772020484 135% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.103484811526 0.128457276422 81% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0630561454041 0.0628817314937 100% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.3 14.3799401198 86% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 48.3550499002 106% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.197005988 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.95 12.5979740519 95% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.18 8.32208582834 98% => OK
difficult_words: 90.0 98.500998004 91% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 12.3882235529 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => 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.