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.
In the memo from the advertising director of the Super Screen Movie Production Company(SSMPC). The author concludes that the problem of fewer people attending Super Screen-produced movies is due to poor advertisement. To support this conclusion, the author based his recommendation on Super Screen(SS) positive reviews not reaching the propective viewers enough. I find this argument unpersuasive, and the author must answer three questions to better evaluate this argument.
Firstly, Is the report based on a large scale of people? It is possible that the recent report just concluded on a scale of people that is not representative of the number of people the environment. Perhaps, the report is based on small group of people which is not enough to draw conclusions from. For example, maybe the report is just based on people in a town and not the whole environment in which SSMPC wants to cover. If the above is true, then the argument does not hold water.
Secondly, Is the percentage of the positive review an increase compared to other years and not just last year? It is possible that the percentage of positive review is a decrease compared to four years back and maybe last year is just a lull. Perhaps, maybe there was a panademic outbreak last year affected peoples reasoning and that made last year positive review to be extremely low. And, activities are back to normal this year and the number of positive review is still low compared to five years ago review. If the above is true, then the argument is based on unwarranted assumption.
Finally, Is the lower people attending SS-produced movies due to lack of public awareness? It is possible that the people are not interested in SS-produced movies and they are well aware of the SSMPC. Perhaps, the type of movies produced by SSMPC is not up to par anymore and people are dissappointed and not ready to waste their time watching SS-produced movies. If the above is true, then the argument is based on invalid assumption.
In conclusion, the argument is unpersuasive, because the author needs to answer the above questions to strengthen the argument.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 2.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 10 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 5 2
No. of Sentences: 19 15
No. of Words: 356 350
No. of Characters: 1720 1500
No. of Different Words: 150 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.344 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.831 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.737 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 118 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 80 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 66 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 37 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 18.737 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 4.876 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.526 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.345 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.345 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.149 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, first, firstly, if, may, second, secondly, so, still, then, well, for example, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 27.0 19.6327345309 138% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 1.0 12.9520958084 8% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 13.6137724551 59% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 17.0 28.8173652695 59% => OK
Preposition: 48.0 55.5748502994 86% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 16.3942115768 85% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1762.0 2260.96107784 78% => OK
No of words: 356.0 441.139720559 81% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.94943820225 5.12650576532 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.34372677135 4.56307096286 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.83244699247 2.78398813304 102% => OK
Unique words: 156.0 204.123752495 76% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.438202247191 0.468620217663 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 549.0 705.55239521 78% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 5.0 8.76447105788 57% => 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: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 22.8473053892 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 29.1212956699 57.8364921388 50% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 92.7368421053 119.503703932 78% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.7368421053 23.324526521 80% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.31578947368 5.70786347227 93% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.20758483034 134% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.88822355289 73% => 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: 0.244409593998 0.218282227539 112% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0887528205227 0.0743258471296 119% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.120760668794 0.0701772020484 172% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.124008233987 0.128457276422 97% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.100146095206 0.0628817314937 159% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.3 14.3799401198 79% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 61.67 48.3550499002 128% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 12.197005988 75% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.43 12.5979740519 91% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.55 8.32208582834 91% => OK
difficult_words: 68.0 98.500998004 69% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 12.3882235529 69% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.1389221557 83% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.