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 advertising director argues Super Screen Movie Production Company should allocate a greater share of its budget to advertising as it would enable the firm to reach a greater audience. He/she cites the fact that fewer people watched their movies this past year than in any other year. Morever, his/her recommendation is also based on the greater percentage of positive movie reviews. While the recommendation may seem promising, it is currently a dicey one as the argument it is based on has failed to address four vital questions.
Firstly, in order to assess the viability of the recommendation, one must ask if the advertising director is an unbiased source to rely upon. That is, there may be several motivating factors that have contributed to his current recommendation. For instance, perhaps the director is advancing this recommendation because he/she can increase his income if it were to be implemented. Similarly, the potential increase in his and his department’s status in the firm may also be a pressing motivation. Should any of these reasons hold true, then implementing the recommendation may not be in the firm’s best interests.
Secondly, the question of trustworthiness also applies to the movie reviewers. While the director assumes we can trust them to be honest and unbiased sources of their films’ quality, this is yet to be proven. For example, they may have published positive reviews because they were paid to do so from the company. Even if there was no financial incentive, it is still possible the reviewers have a bias to this production company. This may stem from several factors, ranging from the kind of films the company produces to the people employed in this production. Thus, given that it is not possible to assess the movie reviewers’ credibility, the director’s argument and thus recommendation are flawed.
Furthermore, even if the reviewers are trustworthy sources, is there a clear link between the movie reviews and the films’ quality and popularity? With regard to the quality aspect, it is clear that the author assumes film quality is derived from film reviews. Yet, this is a limited assessment. For example, perhaps Oscar-level film-makers may completely disagree with these reviews. Hence, it is crucial to widen the criteria used to assess film quality. Moreover, even if we assume reviews are accurate measures of film quality, this does not resolve the question regarding their popularity. Yet, this is a vital aspect to a film’s success. For instance, it is possible that the critics highly venerate the company’s movies, but the public detests them. Should such a situation occur, then it is likely the company will not be financially viable for long.
Fourthly, will increasing the advertising budget lead to the desired result of reaching a larger audience? As can be expected, the director assumes this can only be achieved through his/her department’s work. Yet, it may not necessarily be true if there are other issues that are preventing this from happening. For instance, perhaps people are mostly interested in thrillers and sci-fi films, yet the the firm is only producing romantic-comedies. Similarly, perhaps the company’s films lack original scripts which may be crucial to attracting large audiences. Given that these possible scenarios cannot be ruled, it is not clear if implementing the recommendation would be enough to achieve the desired result.
In conclusion, the director’s argument as it stands now is flawed as it does not elucidate on four vital questions. As a consequence, implementing the recommendation is not a sage decision. However, if the director can provide lucid evidence that supports his position on these four areas, then his/her argument will have more merit than it currently holds.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-08-29 | Eurus Psycho Version | 55 | view |
| 2023-08-21 | riyarmy | 54 | view |
| 2023-08-14 | Saket Choudhary | 68 | view |
| 2023-08-13 | Fahim Shahriar Khan | 58 | view |
| 2023-08-11 | Tanvi Sanandiya | 55 | view |
- In surveys Mason City residents rank water sports swimming boating and fishing among their favorite recreational activities The Mason River flowing through the city is rarely used for these pursuits however and the city park department devotes little of i 59
- A nation should require all of its students to study the same national curriculum until they enter college Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain your reasoning for the position 58
- Claim We can usually learn much more from people whose views we share than from those whose views contradict our own Reason Disagreement can cause stress and inhibit learning Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree 66
- The following appeared in a newsletter offering advice to investors Over 80 percent of the respondents to a recent survey indicated a desire to reduce their intake of foods containing fats and cholesterol and today low fat products abound in many food sto 16
- The following appeared in a letter from a homeowner to a friend Of the two leading real estate firms in our town Adams Realty and Fitch Realty Adams Realty is clearly superior Adams has 40 real estate agents in contrast Fitch has 25 many of whom work only 60
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 2.5 out of 6
Category: Poor Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 2
No. of Sentences: 33 15
No. of Words: 615 350
No. of Characters: 3090 1500
No. of Different Words: 269 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.98 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.024 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.874 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 227 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 183 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 122 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 75 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 18.636 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 5.233 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.788 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.258 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.466 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.098 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 6 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 536, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...failed to address four vital questions. Firstly, in order to assess the viabilit...
^^^^^
Line 10, column 16, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[1]
Message: The verb 'will' requires the base form of the verb: 'increase'
Suggestion: increase
...lly viable for long. Fourthly, will increasing the advertising budget lead to the desi...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 10, column 399, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: the
...sted in thrillers and sci-fi films, yet the the firm is only producing romantic-comedie...
^^^^^^^
Line 10, column 399, Rule ID: DT_DT[1]
Message: Maybe you need to remove one determiner so that only 'the' or 'the' is left.
Suggestion: the; the
...sted in thrillers and sci-fi films, yet the the firm is only producing romantic-comedie...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, furthermore, hence, however, if, may, moreover, regarding, second, secondly, similarly, so, still, then, thus, while, as to, for example, for instance, in conclusion, kind of, with regard to
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 43.0 19.6327345309 219% => Less to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 24.0 12.9520958084 185% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 13.6137724551 73% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 64.0 28.8173652695 222% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 54.0 55.5748502994 97% => OK
Nominalization: 29.0 16.3942115768 177% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3215.0 2260.96107784 142% => OK
No of words: 610.0 441.139720559 138% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.27049180328 5.12650576532 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.96972615649 4.56307096286 109% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.0435118296 2.78398813304 109% => OK
Unique words: 277.0 204.123752495 136% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.454098360656 0.468620217663 97% => OK
syllable_count: 995.4 705.55239521 141% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 16.0 4.96107784431 323% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 6.0 8.76447105788 68% => OK
Subordination: 8.0 2.70958083832 295% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 33.0 19.7664670659 167% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 22.8473053892 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 31.4078300848 57.8364921388 54% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 97.4242424242 119.503703932 82% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.4848484848 23.324526521 79% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.57575757576 5.70786347227 115% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 17.0 8.20758483034 207% => Less positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 6.88822355289 145% => OK
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: 0.167452152487 0.218282227539 77% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0411866957027 0.0743258471296 55% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0536760457872 0.0701772020484 76% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0942230694798 0.128457276422 73% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0732713247927 0.0628817314937 117% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.6 14.3799401198 88% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 48.3550499002 110% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 12.197005988 84% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.29 12.5979740519 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.54 8.32208582834 103% => OK
difficult_words: 155.0 98.500998004 157% => 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?
---------------------
Write the essay in 30 minutes.
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.