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 the memo from the advertising director of the Super Screen Movie Production Company, the author concludes that in order to reach the public more, the Super Screen should allocate a greater share of its budget next year to reach people through advertisement. The author has come to this conclusion based on several premises, that if true, could indicate that the argument holds water. However, there are three questions that needs to be answered by the author, that if not substantiated, dramatically weaken the persuasiveness of the argument.
Firstly, is the report given by the marketing department done systematically? The author assumes, without evidence, that the report given by the marketing department considering the fact that fewer people attended the Super Screen produced movie in that year are fewer than any other year. Perhaps the report given by the department was done hastily probably because there was no time to do efficient research during the recent time. It is also possible that the marketing department did not consider some factors like the total number of people in the area during the recent year. It is possible that the population of people in the area has dramatically reuced and this lead to a decrease in the number of people that attend the Super Screen produced movie in the recent year. If either of this scenario is true, then the author assumption does not hold water.
Secondly, is the percentage of positive review actually a yard stick to conclude that the number of reviews actually increased? The author presumes that, the percentage is actually a measuring yard for the total number of reviews that the movie production company got. It is possibe that the percentage of positive reviews increases but the total number of people that give the positive revies still remain the same. This is because the percentage is actually with respect to the total number of people and if the total number of people decrease apparently the percentage of reviews will increase and this does not mean that the total number of reviews actually increase but just the percentage of the review. If this scenario is true, then the authors suggestion is significantly weakened.
Finally, are these people not attending the Super Screen because they are not aware of the quality of movie that they have? The author assumes that people are not attending the movie place because they are not aware of the quality of movies that they have or probably because they do not know the extent to which the quality is. Perhaps people are aware of the good quality of their movie but
In conclusion, the argument as it stands now, is considerably flawed due to its reliance on several unwarrated assumptions. It will be possible to evaluate the viability of this argument if the author is able to provide answer for the three questions.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 8 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 4 2
No. of Sentences: 19 15
No. of Words: 478 350
No. of Characters: 2332 1500
No. of Different Words: 185 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.676 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.879 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.546 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 173 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 117 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 83 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 43 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 25.158 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.389 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.737 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.347 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.617 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.188 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...en the persuasiveness of the argument. Firstly, is the report given by the mark...
^^^
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...author assumption does not hold water. Secondly, is the percentage of positive ...
^^^^
Line 3, column 749, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...iew. If this scenario is true, then the authors suggestion is significantly weakened. ...
^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...suggestion is significantly weakened. Finally, are these people not attending ...
^^^^
Line 4, column 397, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...e of the good quality of their movie but In conclusion, the argument as it sta...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, apparently, but, finally, first, firstly, however, if, second, secondly, so, still, then, in conclusion, with respect to
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 25.0 19.6327345309 127% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 12.9520958084 31% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 11.1786427146 63% => OK
Relative clauses : 21.0 13.6137724551 154% => OK
Pronoun: 41.0 28.8173652695 142% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 58.0 55.5748502994 104% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 16.3942115768 98% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2377.0 2260.96107784 105% => OK
No of words: 478.0 441.139720559 108% => OK
Chars per words: 4.97280334728 5.12650576532 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.67581127817 4.56307096286 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.60587255419 2.78398813304 94% => OK
Unique words: 189.0 204.123752495 93% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.39539748954 0.468620217663 84% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 757.8 705.55239521 107% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 4.96107784431 161% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 19.7664670659 91% => OK
Sentence length: 26.0 22.8473053892 114% => OK
Sentence length SD: 57.405209038 57.8364921388 99% => OK
Chars per sentence: 132.055555556 119.503703932 111% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.5555555556 23.324526521 114% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.55555555556 5.70786347227 132% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 5.25449101796 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 8.20758483034 146% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.88822355289 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.67664670659 43% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.297405254366 0.218282227539 136% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0962060099801 0.0743258471296 129% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.116385842123 0.0701772020484 166% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.148023915959 0.128457276422 115% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.122444158179 0.0628817314937 195% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.3 14.3799401198 106% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 45.09 48.3550499002 93% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 12.197005988 110% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.84 12.5979740519 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.8 8.32208582834 94% => OK
difficult_words: 87.0 98.500998004 88% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 12.3882235529 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 11.1389221557 111% => 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.