"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.
In a memo by the advertising director of Super Screen Movie Production Company, it is concluded that there is a lack of public awareness of the good quality film and therefore the compnay should advertise more and let the public know about their good quality film as the numbers have decreased compared to last year. The recommendation made is based on unwarranted assumptions and lacks certain evidences. The claim of the advertising director would be bolstered if he/she is able to answer these two questions.
Firstly, the advertising director states that there is decrease in number of people wattching the movies produced by their company but later states that there is percentage increase in positive reviews compared to last year. Is it possible that the percentage calculated for this year has more people compared to earlier and the positive reviews count being the same over the years? Absolutely, it is possible that the number of positive review over the two years have a constant number of 40 say and the number of reviews given this year is 200 whereas in the past year it was 100, then it is clear that the percentage of the current would be 20% and that of the earlier year would have been 40% but this does not make any point to bolster the director claim. He also states that the reviews percentage increased only for some specific movies. It is possible that the specific movies which got positive reviews would be 2 or 3 out of 10 movies. This would surely make the claim questionable and therefore, should be provided with some accurate evidences that cite the proper statistic of the movies.
Secondly, the director assumes that the contents of the reviews is not reaching the viewer and therefore, the company should advertise more to increase the viewer of the movies produced by their company. As there is no clear point made to illustrate whether the positive reviews said anything about the quality of the movie or was it about the storyline of the movie or any other? There are higher possibilities that the reviews are about the story and the actors rather than the quality. The director should have provided some example of the reviews or could have attached a print of the reviews given which would have helped the argument to be lucid rather than absurd and would have satisfied the person to whom the letter is addressed.
In the conclusion, the recommendation of the director can be bolstered if he/she is able to answer the above mentioned questions and provide evidences which are unfalsifiable only then will the company look into the recommendation made of increasing the budget to advertise more and reach more viewers.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 14 15
No. of Words: 456 350
No. of Characters: 2176 1500
No. of Different Words: 185 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.621 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.772 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.555 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 150 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 112 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 79 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 44 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 32.571 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 17.095 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.571 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.388 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.578 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.173 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 444, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...s. The claim of the advertising director would be bolstered if he/she is able to ...
^^
Line 3, column 786, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'reviews'' or 'review's'?
Suggestion: reviews'; review's
...director claim. He also states that the reviews percentage increased only for some spec...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, if, look, second, secondly, so, then, therefore, whereas
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 28.0 19.6327345309 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.9520958084 108% => OK
Conjunction : 18.0 11.1786427146 161% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 13.6137724551 118% => OK
Pronoun: 32.0 28.8173652695 111% => OK
Preposition: 50.0 55.5748502994 90% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 16.3942115768 30% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2214.0 2260.96107784 98% => OK
No of words: 454.0 441.139720559 103% => OK
Chars per words: 4.87665198238 5.12650576532 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.61598047577 4.56307096286 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.59693778412 2.78398813304 93% => OK
Unique words: 186.0 204.123752495 91% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.409691629956 0.468620217663 87% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 700.2 705.55239521 99% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 19.7664670659 71% => 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: 32.0 22.8473053892 140% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 90.5429484289 57.8364921388 157% => OK
Chars per sentence: 158.142857143 119.503703932 132% => OK
Words per sentence: 32.4285714286 23.324526521 139% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.92857142857 5.70786347227 104% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 8.20758483034 146% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 0.0 6.88822355289 0% => 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: 0.154376237621 0.218282227539 71% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0583477265846 0.0743258471296 79% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0508420298989 0.0701772020484 72% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0972978565569 0.128457276422 76% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0387912366353 0.0628817314937 62% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.8 14.3799401198 124% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 47.46 48.3550499002 98% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.6 12.197005988 120% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.62 12.5979740519 92% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.94 8.32208582834 95% => OK
difficult_words: 78.0 98.500998004 79% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 12.3882235529 117% => OK
gunning_fog: 14.8 11.1389221557 133% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.9071856287 126% => 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.