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.
The author claims that Super Screen should allocate a greater share of its budget next year to reaching the public through advertising. The general reason to support this claim is that despite the percentage of positive views increased, the attendance to the movies produced by Super Screen went down last year. However, the argument is flawed because it fails to provide more details to make itself reasonable.
First of all, as mentioned in the argument, fewer people attended Super Screen-produced movies than in any other year. However, this evidence is insufficient to establish the claim in question The author does not provide further details of this phenomenon. There may be some serious events that cause the problem other than the lack of awareness from the public. Consider there was a fatal virus during last year, the government prohibited their residents to go to public places such as theaters or ballparks. In this case, lack of awareness from the public is not responsible for the decline of attendance, and therefore increase the advertising budget won't guarantee the raise of attendance.
Secondly, the argument only informed us that the percentage of positive reviews by movie reviewers increased during the past year. However, the positive or negative reviews do not always relate directly to attendance. Consider the all the movies they produced last year are didactic and have positive influence on people's morals and ethics, of course, it would drag positive reviews from reviews because they met the society's standards. However, local residents may prefer some fantastic Sci-Fi types of movies such as Transformers, and thus in this case advertisement may only offer a little help.
Last but not least, we also do not know what other companies produced last year. Consider a case that another movie producer publishes a movie from a very famous series such as Spider-man or Superman. Due to the renowned success of their predecessors in the series, it wouldn't be surprised that these two movies caught most of the fans' eyes. Despite the movie produced by the super screen was awesome and reviews showed positively, people may choose to go to those classics since those are the topic they are familiar with. In this case, the advertisement also could not help much.
On the surface the authors claim may appear to have some logical sense, but it lacks a great deal of information that is integral to identifying if this is a valid decision. To strengthen it the author might provide clear details to ensure that no other event that can hinder people to attend theaters or that the reviews have direct relations within the area and preclude the condition whether there was any classic being published last year.
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: 19 15
No. of Words: 453 350
No. of Characters: 2247 1500
No. of Different Words: 228 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.613 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.96 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.542 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 169 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 119 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 83 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 46 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 23.842 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.273 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.789 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.304 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.53 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.053 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 270, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: wouldn't
...of their predecessors in the series, it wouldnt be surprised that these two movies caug...
^^^^^^^
Line 8, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...dvertisement also could not help much. On the surface the authors claim may app...
^^^
Line 9, column 445, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... any classic being published last year.
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, then, therefore, thus, of course, such as, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 19.6327345309 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.9520958084 77% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 11.1786427146 107% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 13.6137724551 73% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 34.0 28.8173652695 118% => OK
Preposition: 57.0 55.5748502994 103% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 16.3942115768 91% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2296.0 2260.96107784 102% => OK
No of words: 451.0 441.139720559 102% => OK
Chars per words: 5.09090909091 5.12650576532 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.60833598836 4.56307096286 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.6071767702 2.78398813304 94% => OK
Unique words: 230.0 204.123752495 113% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.509977827051 0.468620217663 109% => OK
syllable_count: 715.5 705.55239521 101% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 22.8473053892 101% => OK
Sentence length SD: 49.3503501883 57.8364921388 85% => OK
Chars per sentence: 120.842105263 119.503703932 101% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.7368421053 23.324526521 102% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.94736842105 5.70786347227 104% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.20758483034 122% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.67664670659 64% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.276156033317 0.218282227539 127% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.086650891486 0.0743258471296 117% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0843671170846 0.0701772020484 120% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.158288450132 0.128457276422 123% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0666683618942 0.0628817314937 106% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.4 14.3799401198 100% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 48.13 48.3550499002 100% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.197005988 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.54 12.5979740519 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.63 8.32208582834 104% => OK
difficult_words: 110.0 98.500998004 112% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.1389221557 101% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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.