The following is taken from a memo from the advertising director of the super screen movie production company
There are two facts presented from the memo: fewer people attended the company's produced movies, yet the positive reviews increased. And the explanation is that people doesn't have doubt of the movies' quality, instead, people is not fully aware of the movies, so more advertisement will be required to increase the public awareness. However, it is problematic to claim the explanation based on the merely two facts mentioned, which I will further explain as following.
First, the facts of dropping attandees and the growth of the positive reviews happened at the same period, doesn't mean there is any causation, or even correlation. Therefore, it is premature to contend that these two facts demonstrate the problem doesn't lie in the poor quality of the movies. Instead, more questions should be asked to understand the root cause of the dropping attendees, such as is the dropping an industry wised situation, or is it only company specific. If it is a company specific trend, than the reason behind might be the poor quality, not the low awareness. What I would like to emphasize is that more data should be collected to further understand the root cause of dropping attendees to be able to claim further suggestions.
Second, due to the lack of enough amount of reviews to attract future viwers, it is suggested to increase the awareness via ads to boost the growth of the future viwers. However, it is unclear that what is the reason to cause the insufficient positive reviews. Like what is discussed above, poor quality still might be the reason to lower the amount of general postivie reviews. Therefore, it is questionable to make suggestion before knowing the reasons behind. If the main reason is the poor quality, than the budget to be used to grow the awareness will only lead to negtive public awareness which is even harmful.
Third, the only thing we are sure from the memo is the dropping viweres and growing postivi reviews toward specifc movies. Also the objective to boost the future viwer growth. In this case, a better way to reach potential recommendation is to analyze what types of the movies are being praised, so that the company can truly understand what movies are attractive to thier viwers. Then they can decide the way to allocate the budget that fit to the viewers' needs more. For example, there might be some specifc category of the movies, like horror movies, should be increased after the analysis. If that's the case, then the budget will be more effective to be used for producing horror movies than for advertisement. The critical element here is the recommendation can only be effective when the root cause is being cautiously researched.
In conlusion, quickly drawn causation without enough details, and lack of the analysis of the reasons behind the trends, make it problematic to claim the effective recommendations.
Comments
e-rater score 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: 21 15
No. of Words: 482 350
No. of Characters: 2324 1500
No. of Different Words: 209 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.686 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.822 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.596 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 173 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 121 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 76 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 53 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.952 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.793 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.81 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.314 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.517 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.064 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 169, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...sed. And the explanation is that people doesnt have doubt of the movies quality, inste...
^^^^^^
Line 3, column 108, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...ve reviews happened at the same period, doesnt mean there is any causation, or even co...
^^^^^^
Line 3, column 248, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...these two facts demonstrate the problem doesnt lie in the poor quality of the movies. ...
^^^^^^
Line 3, column 510, Rule ID: COMMA_THAN[1]
Message: Did you mean 'then'?
Suggestion: then
...fic. If it is a company specific trend, than the reason behind might be the poor qua...
^^^^
Line 5, column 504, Rule ID: COMMA_THAN[1]
Message: Did you mean 'then'?
Suggestion: then
...If the main reason is the poor quality, than the budget to be used to grow the aware...
^^^^
Line 7, column 124, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Also,
... postivi reviews toward specifc movies. Also the objective to boost the future viwer...
^^^^
Line 7, column 597, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: that's
...uld be increased after the analysis. If thats the case, then the budget will be more ...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, however, if, second, so, still, then, therefore, third, for example, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 38.0 19.6327345309 194% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.9520958084 108% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 11.1786427146 63% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 13.6137724551 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 20.0 28.8173652695 69% => OK
Preposition: 59.0 55.5748502994 106% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 16.3942115768 73% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2393.0 2260.96107784 106% => OK
No of words: 479.0 441.139720559 109% => OK
Chars per words: 4.99582463466 5.12650576532 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.67825486995 4.56307096286 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.70511960572 2.78398813304 97% => OK
Unique words: 215.0 204.123752495 105% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.44885177453 0.468620217663 96% => OK
syllable_count: 750.6 705.55239521 106% => 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: 4.0 8.76447105788 46% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.70958083832 221% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 5.0 1.67365269461 299% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 19.7664670659 106% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 38.9332820799 57.8364921388 67% => OK
Chars per sentence: 113.952380952 119.503703932 95% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.8095238095 23.324526521 98% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.2380952381 5.70786347227 74% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 7.0 5.25449101796 133% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 8.20758483034 146% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.88822355289 131% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.67664670659 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.079547019898 0.218282227539 36% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0252767817236 0.0743258471296 34% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0450397507303 0.0701772020484 64% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0449903641811 0.128457276422 35% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0476281965002 0.0628817314937 76% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.5 14.3799401198 94% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 48.3550499002 102% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.02 12.5979740519 95% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.22 8.32208582834 99% => OK
difficult_words: 106.0 98.500998004 108% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 12.3882235529 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => 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.