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, the advertising director of the Super Screen Movie Production Company concludes that the company should allocate more share of next year budget in order to reach it to more people through advertisments. He come to this contention based on the report from marketing department and the increase in the percentage of positive reviews about the content of movies. While this might be valid, the author needs to provide three pieces of additional evidence in order to bolster the assertion's credibility.
First of all, the author assumes that the report from the marketing department is reliable and representative of all people who are enthusiastic in watching the movies. However, this might not be true. For example, is might of possible that the report is representative of few cities or region, as the marketing company may take reviews from people of only a few big cities. In addition, it might also be possible that the marketing department has bribed by other production companies to reduce the count about number of people attended Super Screen produced movies. If the aforementioned cases turn out to be true then the author's evaluation is considerably hampered.
Secondly, the author assumes that the increase in percentage of positive reviews is significant. However, this might not be the case. For instance, it might be possible that only a few people are watching Super Screen produced movies. Thus, even if the percentage increase in number of viewer is high, still overall the number of viewers are less. In addition, it is also possible that these positive reviews came from because of success of only one movie, while other movies are rated bad. If either of these scenario hold true, then the author's contention will be weakend.
Finally, the author assumes that the people are less aware of availability of good quality movies. However, this might not hold water. Perhaps it is possible that people are much aware of all the released movies and they don't like the star cast of movies made by Super Screen production and hence they don't watch. In addition, is may be true that the Super Screen production campany releases movies with almost same content as the other production companies are releasing, that is they are copying content from other production house. If that proves to be the case, then author’s argument is not overly compelling.
To conclude, the director may be correct about predicting the problems that Super Screen production company is going through and therefore allocating more funds in advertising movies. However, as it stands now, the prediction rests on three unwarranted assumptions that dramatically hinder its validity. If the author would like to increase the persuasiveness of his conclusion, he needs to answer the three question above.
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: 22 15
No. of Words: 460 350
No. of Characters: 2292 1500
No. of Different Words: 194 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.631 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.983 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.681 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 170 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 120 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 86 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 47 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.909 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.944 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.909 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.319 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.496 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.055 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 487, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'assertions'' or 'assertion's'?
Suggestion: assertions'; assertion's
...tional evidence in order to bolster the assertions credibility. First of all, the auth...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 219, Rule ID: MODAL_OF[1]
Message: It's never correct to use "of" after a modal verb. Use 'might have', or, in informal register, 'might've'.
Suggestion: might have; might've
...this might not be true. For example, is might of possible that the report is representat...
^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 568, 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.
... attended Super Screen produced movies. If the aforementioned cases turn out to be...
^^
Line 3, column 625, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...oned cases turn out to be true then the authors evaluation is considerably hampered. ...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 241, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...hing Super Screen produced movies. Thus, even if the percentage increase in numbe...
^^
Line 5, column 506, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'this scenario' or 'these scenarios'?
Suggestion: this scenario; these scenarios
...ther movies are rated bad. If either of these scenario hold true, then the authors contention ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 541, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...r of these scenario hold true, then the authors contention will be weakend. Finally...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 222, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
...are of all the released movies and they dont like the star cast of movies made by Su...
^^^^
Line 7, column 303, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
... Super Screen production and hence they dont watch. In addition, is may be true that...
^^^^
Line 7, column 616, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...or’s argument is not overly compelling. To conclude, the director may be correct...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, first, hence, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, still, then, therefore, thus, while, for example, for instance, in addition, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 30.0 19.6327345309 153% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.9520958084 100% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 11.1786427146 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 15.0 13.6137724551 110% => OK
Pronoun: 34.0 28.8173652695 118% => OK
Preposition: 63.0 55.5748502994 113% => OK
Nominalization: 21.0 16.3942115768 128% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2355.0 2260.96107784 104% => OK
No of words: 458.0 441.139720559 104% => OK
Chars per words: 5.14192139738 5.12650576532 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.62611441266 4.56307096286 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.73908188165 2.78398813304 98% => OK
Unique words: 194.0 204.123752495 95% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.423580786026 0.468620217663 90% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 737.1 705.55239521 104% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 4.96107784431 181% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 9.0 2.70958083832 332% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 19.7664670659 111% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 53.9805597085 57.8364921388 93% => OK
Chars per sentence: 107.045454545 119.503703932 90% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.8181818182 23.324526521 89% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.18181818182 5.70786347227 126% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 10.0 5.25449101796 190% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 15.0 8.20758483034 183% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 6.88822355289 29% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.67664670659 107% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.286383195233 0.218282227539 131% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0777017142847 0.0743258471296 105% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0894234757201 0.0701772020484 127% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.178985953775 0.128457276422 139% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0660398397369 0.0628817314937 105% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.2 14.3799401198 92% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 48.3550499002 106% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.197005988 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.53 12.5979740519 99% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.8 8.32208582834 94% => OK
difficult_words: 92.0 98.500998004 93% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 12.3882235529 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => 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.