"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 advertising director of Super Screen Movie Production Company, who is the writer if this analytical piece has made a disjointed argument that increasing the advertsing will ensure increased viewership of the movies that the company produces. In support of this he asserts that, in spite of fewer people wacthing their movies last year, there was an increase in the positive reviews about specific Super Screen movies. Thus, it is not the content of the films but the lack of awareness of the people about their good quality movies that is responsible for the reduced number of viewers. The argument seems plausible at first, however a deeper analysis reveals some logical fallacies.
To begin with, a major lacuna in the argument is that it relies on the percentage of good reviews to maintain that the quality of their movies does not require improvement. However the question that needs to be answered is that have the number of people who reviewed the movies increased or remained constant. If this is not the case, and the reviewers have reduced, it maybe possible that the number of people who do not like the company's movies stopped reviewing or altogether abandoned watching them. This lead to an increase in the percentage of the positive reviews. However it does not imply that the number of people who enjoyed the movies is high. Thus the writer of argument must answer the above question before coming to any conclusion.
Secondly, the reviewers have given increasingly positive reviews about some specific movies of the company. However, an important question is that what is the number of these movies and the ratio compared to the total films released that year. It is possible that, company produced about twenty movies that year and only one or two got high number of positive reviews while the others were panned by the reviewers.
Furthermore, the author unfairly attributes the reason of reduced number of viewers this year as compared to the other years to the fact that the advertising was not enough. However the question arises that was the advertising that year indeed lesser than that of other years. If the budget and advertising done for the movies this year was the same as the years before, then evidently there is some other cause of the viewership decline. It maybe possible that the company released may movies of the same genre. Thus, prople showed barely any interest to watch them. Also it is likely that the release dates of the movies clashed with other movies that people were more interested in, thus they chose to go for those. Unless the doubt regarding the actual reason of the reduced viewership is cleared, the author's argument does not hold water.
Thus, the writer of this piece has made an argument on some wishy washy observations. A number of questions arise on analysing it carefully. Unless the writer bolsters the argument with sufficient evidence, his claim that an increase in the advertising budget and reaching out to more public, will ensure a subsiquent rise in the people watching the the Company's movies, does not hold much weight
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 6 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 10 2
No. of Sentences: 23 15
No. of Words: 522 350
No. of Characters: 2530 1500
No. of Different Words: 219 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.78 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.847 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.413 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 192 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 125 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 90 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 44 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.696 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.229 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.87 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.336 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.512 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.094 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 174, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: However,
...ir movies does not require improvement. However the question that needs to be answered ...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 573, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: However,
...the percentage of the positive reviews. However it does not imply that the number of pe...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 657, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
... people who enjoyed the movies is high. Thus the writer of argument must answer the ...
^^^^
Line 7, column 175, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: However,
...ct that the advertising was not enough. However the question arises that was the advert...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 569, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Also,
...owed barely any interest to watch them. Also it is likely that the release dates of ...
^^^^
Line 7, column 807, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
... the reduced viewership is cleared, the authors argument does not hold water. Thus, ...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 293, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... budget and reaching out to more public, will ensure a subsiquent rise in the peo...
^^
Line 9, column 348, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: the
... subsiquent rise in the people watching the the Companys movies, does not hold much wei...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 348, Rule ID: DT_DT[1]
Message: Maybe you need to remove one determiner so that only 'the' or 'the' is left.
Suggestion: the; the
... subsiquent rise in the people watching the the Companys movies, does not hold much wei...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, furthermore, however, if, may, regarding, second, secondly, so, then, thus, while, in spite of, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.6327345309 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 12.9520958084 31% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 26.0 13.6137724551 191% => OK
Pronoun: 47.0 28.8173652695 163% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 63.0 55.5748502994 113% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 16.3942115768 85% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2585.0 2260.96107784 114% => OK
No of words: 522.0 441.139720559 118% => OK
Chars per words: 4.95210727969 5.12650576532 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.77988695657 4.56307096286 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.46810291112 2.78398813304 89% => OK
Unique words: 226.0 204.123752495 111% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.432950191571 0.468620217663 92% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 816.3 705.55239521 116% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 19.7664670659 116% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 55.1116069894 57.8364921388 95% => OK
Chars per sentence: 112.391304348 119.503703932 94% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.6956521739 23.324526521 97% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.52173913043 5.70786347227 97% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 9.0 5.25449101796 171% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 14.0 8.20758483034 171% => 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: 0.193033317641 0.218282227539 88% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0608154827506 0.0743258471296 82% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0513032451087 0.0701772020484 73% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.116256723009 0.128457276422 91% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0603533139219 0.0628817314937 96% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.2 14.3799401198 92% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 48.3550499002 102% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.73 12.5979740519 93% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.99 8.32208582834 96% => OK
difficult_words: 108.0 98.500998004 110% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 18.0 12.3882235529 145% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => 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.