The following is taken from a memo from the advertising director of Super Screen Movie Production Company.
"According to a recent report from our marketing, 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 the 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 memo by the advertising director of the Super Screen Movie production company recommends to allocate a greater share of its budget next year in advertising to reach the public. The advertising director gives the recommendation based on the conclusion that the qualities of the movies is not bad and that there is lack of public awareness about the good quality of movies available. These conclusions are drawn from the report of past year that shows increased percentage of positvie review even though fewer people attended Super screen- produced movies. The arguments made by the advertising director have insufficient evidence and should answer the below mentioned three reasons to be recommended.
First of all, could it be the case that people are aware about the movies previously produced by Super Screen and chose not to come? There is a possibility of the case that the majority of public did not like previous films produced by the company and thus decided not to show up for any movies produced by them last year. If such was a scenario then company needs to gather data on whether the public was aware about the films being released which were produced by production house or not rather than just assume that there was lack of awareness among the public. If the public was aware and chose not to attend the movie screenings, then it means that in reality it is the quality of the movies which is bad and thus the advertising directors recommendation to increase budget for advertising will not have the desired effect.
Secondly, did only the people who have previously liked the movies produced by Super Screen attended the screenings last year? It is possible that only a certain select type of people attended the screenings last year and thus the report of increased percentage of positive reviews from last year is actually biased. If this is the case then the company needs to analyse the viewer base to check if it is biased. If indeed the people who attended and posted postive reviews are a small number of fans of the kind of movies produced by Super Screen, then if the company goes ahead with recommendation of reaching out to a wider viewer base, it may not have the desired result as most people might not enjoy the kind of movies produced by the company.
Lastly, does last year's results reflect what will happen next year as well? It is important to understand and reflect on with evidence if the positive reviews of last year mean than in the next year it will happen the same way. It is possible that the company produced some movies last year which starred famous celebrities which people follow, however it may not be able to do the same next year in which case, if they approach a wider public base with recommended increased budget in adversting as made by the director it may not have the desired result of increased postive response.
Therefore, the recommendation made by the advertising director is not a very solid and is based on many unwarranted assumptions. To bolster the recommendation, the above mentioned questions must be addressed and answered to through proper research like a survey.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 5 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 6 2
No. of Sentences: 17 15
No. of Words: 539 350
No. of Characters: 2567 1500
No. of Different Words: 210 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.818 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.763 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.572 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 179 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 118 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 87 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 49 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 31.706 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 13.915 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.706 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.37 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.609 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.134 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 83, Rule ID: ADMIT_ENJOY_VB[1]
Message: This verb is used with the gerund form: 'recommends allocating'.
Suggestion: recommends allocating
...e Super Screen Movie production company recommends to allocate a greater share of its budget next year...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 14, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...sons to be recommended. First of all, could it be the case that people are awa...
^^
Line 5, column 479, Rule ID: SMALL_NUMBER_OF[1]
Message: Specify a number, remove phrase, use 'a few', or use 'some'
Suggestion: a few; some
...attended and posted postive reviews are a small number of fans of the kind of movies produced by ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 306, Rule ID: FAMOUS_CELEBRITY[1]
Message: Use simply 'celebrities'.
Suggestion: celebrities
...ced some movies last year which starred famous celebrities which people follow, however it may not...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 264, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... through proper research like a survey.
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, first, however, if, lastly, may, second, secondly, so, then, therefore, thus, well, kind of, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 26.0 19.6327345309 132% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.9520958084 77% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 11.1786427146 107% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 13.6137724551 118% => OK
Pronoun: 25.0 28.8173652695 87% => OK
Preposition: 74.0 55.5748502994 133% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 16.3942115768 55% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2612.0 2260.96107784 116% => OK
No of words: 539.0 441.139720559 122% => OK
Chars per words: 4.84601113173 5.12650576532 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.81833721656 4.56307096286 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.61651463122 2.78398813304 94% => OK
Unique words: 215.0 204.123752495 105% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.398886827458 0.468620217663 85% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 825.3 705.55239521 117% => 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: 5.0 8.76447105788 57% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.22255489022 24% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 19.7664670659 86% => OK
Sentence length: 31.0 22.8473053892 136% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 75.7961206337 57.8364921388 131% => OK
Chars per sentence: 153.647058824 119.503703932 129% => OK
Words per sentence: 31.7058823529 23.324526521 136% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.76470588235 5.70786347227 119% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 5.25449101796 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.20758483034 134% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.67664670659 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.385231883356 0.218282227539 176% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.138086661183 0.0743258471296 186% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0976171593102 0.0701772020484 139% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.215895259503 0.128457276422 168% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.125011117285 0.0628817314937 199% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.3 14.3799401198 120% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 48.47 48.3550499002 100% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 12.197005988 116% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.44 12.5979740519 91% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.69 8.32208582834 92% => OK
difficult_words: 86.0 98.500998004 87% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 12.3882235529 117% => OK
gunning_fog: 14.4 11.1389221557 129% => 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.