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, it was concluded that the company should allocate more of her next year's budget to advertisement. This conclusion was made as a result of the positive responses by a comparatively small amount of viewers, and the director believed from his or her supposed justification that more financial commitments should be made to the advertising department in order to reach more prospective viewers. However, to properly evaluate the validity of the director's recommendation, three questions must be answered.
First, are feedbacks gotten from all of the past year's viewers? In other words, what proportion of the past year viewers dropped a review on their experience let alone positive reviews? It is possible that out of the supposedly small viewers, only an insignificant amount decided to comment on their experience in the studio. Hypothetically, out of about of 200 viewers, a total of 50 viewers might have decided to leave a comment on the content of the movie. Unless, the studio is one that plays on viewers' flexibility and rights by enforcing "a must comment basis upon the completion of any movie -which would be out rightly illegal in this current dispensation. In fact, out of the few reviews gotten, it is possible that only about 30 were positive ones. This type of figure is undoubtedly not an encouraging one and such basis as an indicator for good content seems frivolous. If either of the scenarios is true, then the director's contention on the basis of positive feedbacks gotten for more funds allocation does not hold water.
Further, is insufficient funds the current advertising strategy problem? Even if the content is good as claimed, the director presumes without evidence that the major problem with the studio's advertising sector is insufficient funds. It is possible that the problem is their lack of innovation in creating compelling trailers for movies or the workers are entrenched in an anachronistic and pedestrian approach for advertisement. As such, the prospective viewers impression of the studio is besieged by such prosaic advertisements. It is also possible that the advertising team are not well encouraged by the leadership (aside financial wellbeing). What if the leadership of the sector lacks empathy and makes the workers grovel upon his presence, thereby undermining their creativity and outputs. We do not just know. If either of the scenarios above is true, then the director's stance on more funds allocation is not overly persuasive.
Finally, is the report from the marketing sector a valid one? What are the basis used by the marketing department to generate such report? The director assumes without any need for further validation that the report might be flawed in significant circumstances. It is possible that the marketing report based their attendance record on the amounts of people that registered for the movies as opposed to the actual viewers. What if last year was not amenable for viewers to visit the studio (maybe a pandemic or any other unavoidable circumstances) that compelled them to forfeit their registration for a movie. As such, the problem may not be with the advertising sector but rather an environmental circumstances. Unless the director properly asses the basis of the reports in question, his or her conclusion on the need for allocation of funds for the advertising sector is unfounded.
In conclusion, while it is possible that more outreach needs to be done and its achievement is dependent on more funds allocation, the director basis for such conclusion is open to various questions (as stated above) that must be answered systematically and evidently to make his or her conclusion plausible and worthy of consideration.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 27 15
No. of Words: 613 350
No. of Characters: 3122 1500
No. of Different Words: 258 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.976 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.093 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.975 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 226 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 182 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 131 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 92 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.704 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.579 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.519 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.293 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.472 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.133 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 530, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'directors'' or 'director's'?
Suggestion: directors'; director's
...o properly evaluate the validity of the directors recommendation, three questions must be...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 34, Rule ID: ALL_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'all the'.
Suggestion: all the
...ed. First, are feedbacks gotten from all of the past years viewers? In other words, wha...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 501, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'viewers'' or 'viewer's'?
Suggestion: viewers'; viewer's
...Unless, the studio is one that plays on viewers flexibility and rights by enforcing &ap...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 933, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'directors'' or 'director's'?
Suggestion: directors'; director's
...ther of the scenarios is true, then the directors contention on the basis of positive fee...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 456, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'viewers'' or 'viewer's'?
Suggestion: viewers'; viewer's
...advertisement. As such, the prospective viewers impression of the studio is besieged by...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 869, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'directors'' or 'director's'?
Suggestion: directors'; director's
...f the scenarios above is true, then the directors stance on more funds allocation is not ...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 698, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[2]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'circumstance'?
Suggestion: circumstance
...sing sector but rather an environmental circumstances. Unless the director properly asses the...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, however, if, may, so, then, well, while, in conclusion, in fact, as a result, in other words
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 35.0 19.6327345309 178% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.9520958084 85% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 11.1786427146 134% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 13.6137724551 110% => OK
Pronoun: 41.0 28.8173652695 142% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 80.0 55.5748502994 144% => OK
Nominalization: 29.0 16.3942115768 177% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3189.0 2260.96107784 141% => OK
No of words: 613.0 441.139720559 139% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.20228384992 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.97582523872 4.56307096286 109% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.04479130761 2.78398813304 109% => OK
Unique words: 268.0 204.123752495 131% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.437194127243 0.468620217663 93% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 1000.8 705.55239521 142% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 4.96107784431 202% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 7.0 2.70958083832 258% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.22255489022 166% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 27.0 19.7664670659 137% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 66.171680937 57.8364921388 114% => OK
Chars per sentence: 118.111111111 119.503703932 99% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.7037037037 23.324526521 97% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.40740740741 5.70786347227 77% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 7.0 5.25449101796 133% => 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: 7.0 4.67664670659 150% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.181541719753 0.218282227539 83% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0542344080023 0.0743258471296 73% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0752863860903 0.0701772020484 107% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.103939095978 0.128457276422 81% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0804710794581 0.0628817314937 128% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.4 14.3799401198 100% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 48.3550499002 102% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.18 12.5979740519 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.57 8.32208582834 103% => OK
difficult_words: 149.0 98.500998004 151% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 12.3882235529 117% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 30 minutes.
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.