"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 author concluded that the problem affecting the success of the Super Screen Movies is due to that fact that its positive reviews are not getting to their prospective reviewers hence the need to allocate a greater share of its next year's budget on advertising. Owing to this submission, the argument of the author with the pieces of evidence presented is not well corroborated and hence makes the argument unsubstantiated.
Firstly, the author assumed that the reports obtained from the marketing department are ultimate and flawless, yet there might exist various obscurities within the methodology employed by the marketing department in carrying out their survey. The author failed to provide the exact number of people that attended the movies produced by Super-Screen Production last year and that of this year to further substantiate his conclusion about the increase in the numbers of the reviewers.
Secondly, the author failed to consider the fact that the number of those sampled for the survey for the previous year had a lot of impacts on the reviews. For instance, 50% of 20 viewers is not the same as 50% of 40 viewers. If the author could provide the total number of the viewers for the previous year and this year as well as the percentage of the positive reviews and the negative reviews for both years, this would further affirm the author's submission of increasing the company's budget on advertising.
Thirdly, the author assumed that all the movies produced by Super Screen movie production were all of good quality and the only reason behind their lack of visibility was due to their low budget on advertising. This is not completely true since the other failed to provide information about the previous allocations of the company on advertising. The author stated that fewer people attended this year but previous year have witnessed more numbers of attendees, this shows that the populace were actually of the movies produced by the company.
Furthermore, the author also failed to consider some factors such as customer relation between her staffs and the viewers that patronized the company. The demography was not also put into consideration. These could have resulted into the decline in the number of viewers of the movies produced by the company.
In conclusion, the author needs to provide responses to the questions mentioned above before the recommendation asserted could be accepted.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 4 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 2 2
No. of Sentences: 14 15
No. of Words: 395 350
No. of Characters: 1997 1500
No. of Different Words: 181 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.458 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.056 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.67 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 156 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 115 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 78 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 43 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 28.214 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 11.137 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.786 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.386 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.386 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.087 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 444, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...th years, this would further affirm the authors submission of increasing the companys b...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, first, firstly, furthermore, hence, if, second, secondly, so, third, thirdly, well, for instance, in conclusion, such as, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 19.6327345309 56% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 12.9520958084 46% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 28.0 28.8173652695 97% => OK
Preposition: 60.0 55.5748502994 108% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 16.3942115768 73% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2032.0 2260.96107784 90% => OK
No of words: 395.0 441.139720559 90% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.14430379747 5.12650576532 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.45809453852 4.56307096286 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.75583313127 2.78398813304 99% => OK
Unique words: 182.0 204.123752495 89% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.460759493671 0.468620217663 98% => OK
syllable_count: 623.7 705.55239521 88% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => 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: 28.0 22.8473053892 123% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 68.3549036803 57.8364921388 118% => OK
Chars per sentence: 145.142857143 119.503703932 121% => OK
Words per sentence: 28.2142857143 23.324526521 121% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.9285714286 5.70786347227 191% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => 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: 0.197301439103 0.218282227539 90% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0646958175669 0.0743258471296 87% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0702828869455 0.0701772020484 100% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.101008801401 0.128457276422 79% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.095748046653 0.0628817314937 152% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.9 14.3799401198 118% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 43.06 48.3550499002 89% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 12.197005988 116% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.83 12.5979740519 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.9 8.32208582834 107% => OK
difficult_words: 97.0 98.500998004 98% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 18.5 12.3882235529 149% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.2 11.1389221557 119% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.