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.
According to the reading passage, it argues that the Super Screen Movie Production Company has to extend its budget to an advertisement. However, in order to evaluate the recommendation, more information and evidence are required regarding the following questions.
Firstly, are the contents of movies intriguing the public? When we select which movie to watch, one of the most critical criteria is the contents of a movie, for example, love, crimes, or special season-related themes. If the company's last year's movies were full of minor themes, it might be the reason for the decline in the number of movie watchers. In addition, those who love the minor themes will more like its movies, which might explain the increased percentage of positive reviews. Hence, if then, the reduced move watchers are unrelated to the public's unawareness about its movies, and the argument cannot hold water.
Secondly, is the decline in movie watchers shown only to the company? Perhaps the decreased movie watcher situation happened widely in the film industry not only for the Super Screen Movie Production Company but also for others. For example, like our current situation, during COVID19, people eschew to go outside and most of the activities have reduced. If then, the reason for the decreased number who attended the movies is irrelevant to the public's lack of awareness, and it will weaken the recommendation.
Thirdly, how many portions of movie watchers left reviews? Perhaps those who wrote reviews were only a few of the entire movie watchers, so it might not represent that those who watched movies were satisfied with its movies. In general, only a few people who are strongly impressed by the movie write reviews and it hardly represents the entire movie watchers' opinions. Thus, the company should not think that the increased positive movie reviews indicate that its movie quality was high enough based on the reviews. It shows the argument can be undermined with the lack of representativeness of the reviews.
To sum up, the recommendation, as it stands now, seems implausible due to its reliance on unwarranted assumptions. If the director fails to provide proper evidence or information to answer those mentioned three questions, it cannot be persuasive.
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: 2 2
No. of Sentences: 18 15
No. of Words: 366 350
No. of Characters: 1850 1500
No. of Different Words: 184 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.374 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.055 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.709 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 144 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 104 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 70 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 39 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.333 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 5.783 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.889 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.338 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.572 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.103 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
According to the reading passage, it arg...
^^^^
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...d regarding the following questions. Firstly, are the contents of movies intr...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 559, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'publics'' or 'public's'?
Suggestion: publics'; public's
...uced move watchers are unrelated to the publics unawareness about its movies, and the a...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... and the argument cannot hold water. Secondly, is the decline in movie watche...
^^^^
Line 7, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...d it will weaken the recommendation. Thirdly, how many portions of movie watc...
^^^^
Line 9, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...f representativeness of the reviews. To sum up, the recommendation, as it sta...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, hence, however, if, regarding, second, secondly, so, then, third, thirdly, thus, as to, for example, in addition, in general, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 19.6327345309 71% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.9520958084 69% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 11.1786427146 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 13.6137724551 88% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 28.8173652695 83% => OK
Preposition: 43.0 55.5748502994 77% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 16.3942115768 98% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1909.0 2260.96107784 84% => OK
No of words: 366.0 441.139720559 83% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.21584699454 5.12650576532 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.37391431897 4.56307096286 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.82173247257 2.78398813304 101% => OK
Unique words: 192.0 204.123752495 94% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.524590163934 0.468620217663 112% => OK
syllable_count: 595.8 705.55239521 84% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Article: 4.0 8.76447105788 46% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.70958083832 221% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.22255489022 166% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 19.7664670659 91% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 32.8367172537 57.8364921388 57% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 106.055555556 119.503703932 89% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.3333333333 23.324526521 87% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.0 5.70786347227 158% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 5.25449101796 114% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.88822355289 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.67664670659 107% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.198603679381 0.218282227539 91% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0680214030943 0.0743258471296 92% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0622766706839 0.0701772020484 89% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.114730693383 0.128457276422 89% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0644191191936 0.0628817314937 102% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.3 14.3799401198 92% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 48.3550499002 106% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.197005988 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.0 12.5979740519 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.77 8.32208582834 105% => OK
difficult_words: 96.0 98.500998004 97% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => 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.