"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."
The argument states that a recent survey conducted by the marketing department of Super Screen produced movies during the past year showed that the number of people attending the movies reduced than in any other year inspite of increased positive reviews from movie reviewers and therefore the organization is willing to spend a great deal of its budget in advertising. While the argument seems convincing, there are few things that are left uncertain like the reviews in the past year versus the reviews this year and the advertising budget of the organization as compared to the budget of other successful movie makers or the reviews of general public that watched their movies.
It is stated in the passage that the number of positive reviews by movie reviewers increased and it is posited that the movies made by Super Screen are of good quality, but it may also be the case that since the number of their movie audience decreased the percentage of people who would dislike the movie also decreased and hence the reviews are mostly positive. It may also be a case that the movie reviews are positive mostly because the people who watch their movies are those who have a predilection for such kind of movies and hence are biased reviewers. In this case, the argument's claim that the movies produced by the Super Screen productions are of good quality can be repudiated.
The argument also states that the Super Screen productions are willing to allocate a major share of the budget to advertising, but we are not given even an inkling about the usual budget allocated for advertising. This is significant to evaluate the argument as if the usual advertising budget is similar to or greater than that of the advertising budgets of other successful movies then the author's claim that the increased advertising budget can solvw their crisis will be proven false. In this case, the author's prediction that the Super Screen productions should allocate more budget to the advertising in order to disseminate its movies will be false.
A movie's success is primarily determined by the money it collected which in turn is reflected by the number of ticket sales or the appreciation of the movie by the movie goers. The argument only considers the reviews given by the reviewers but not the general public who are vital in deciding the profitability of a movie. If the audience were not impressed with the movie then the movie will not be profitable. Hence, the author's prediction that the quality of movies will be suitable to the audience will be false.
Hence, the above factors must be considered in order to evaluate the recommendation.
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: 13 15
No. of Words: 447 350
No. of Characters: 2169 1500
No. of Different Words: 168 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.598 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.852 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.611 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 153 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 104 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 75 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 51 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 34.385 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 16.141 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.769 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.418 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.691 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.186 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 640, Rule ID: GENERAL_XX[1]
Message: Use simply 'public'.
Suggestion: public
...ccessful movie makers or the reviews of general public that watched their movies. It is state...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 222, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...lso be the case that since the number of their movie audience decreased the perce...
^^
Line 3, column 508, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...will be proven false. In this case, the authors prediction that the Super Screen produc...
^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 3, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'movies'' or 'movie's'?
Suggestion: movies'; movie's
...isseminate its movies will be false. A movies success is primarily determined by the ...
^^^^^^
Line 4, column 252, Rule ID: GENERAL_XX[1]
Message: Use simply 'public'.
Suggestion: public
...iews given by the reviewers but not the general public who are vital in deciding the profitabi...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 323, 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.
... deciding the profitability of a movie. If the audience were not impressed with th...
^^
Line 4, column 423, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...ovie will not be profitable. Hence, the authors prediction that the quality of movies w...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, hence, if, may, so, then, therefore, while, kind of
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 28.0 19.6327345309 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.9520958084 93% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 11.1786427146 98% => OK
Relative clauses : 19.0 13.6137724551 140% => OK
Pronoun: 31.0 28.8173652695 108% => OK
Preposition: 57.0 55.5748502994 103% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 16.3942115768 98% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2192.0 2260.96107784 97% => OK
No of words: 447.0 441.139720559 101% => OK
Chars per words: 4.90380313199 5.12650576532 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.59808378696 4.56307096286 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.65258356524 2.78398813304 95% => OK
Unique words: 169.0 204.123752495 83% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.37807606264 0.468620217663 81% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 707.4 705.55239521 100% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 19.7664670659 66% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 34.0 22.8473053892 149% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 95.3282711998 57.8364921388 165% => OK
Chars per sentence: 168.615384615 119.503703932 141% => OK
Words per sentence: 34.3846153846 23.324526521 147% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.76923076923 5.70786347227 84% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 7.0 5.25449101796 133% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.20758483034 122% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 6.88822355289 15% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.276849332222 0.218282227539 127% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.114229915542 0.0743258471296 154% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0971392879242 0.0701772020484 138% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.144702653101 0.128457276422 113% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0957739412085 0.0628817314937 152% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 18.8 14.3799401198 131% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 36.97 48.3550499002 76% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 16.6 12.197005988 136% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.73 12.5979740519 93% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.08 8.32208582834 97% => OK
difficult_words: 78.0 98.500998004 79% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 27.5 12.3882235529 222% => Linsear_write_formula is high.
gunning_fog: 15.6 11.1389221557 140% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.