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 ot

Essay topics:

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 argument stated is taken up from a memorandum issued by the advertising director of the Super Screen Movie Production company. In the memo, the director states that the company should concentrate more on advertising the positive reviews from movie reviewers to attract the attention of the people which has declined over the past year. While the argument stated by the director seems reasonable at a bare glance, upon careful consideration a number of unwarranted assumptions and holes is found rendering the argument facile and not cogent.

The advertising director stated that according to a report from the marketing department of the company, fewer people have attended movies produced by Super Screen. He/She also states that the movie reviewers rated the movies more positively in the same period. With these evidences in mind, the director assumes that the reviews are not reaching their prospective viewers and thus a greater share of the company's budget be allocated to advertising these reviews. The author's assumption is flagrant here as he does not provide any reports to assume the lack of reachability to viewers. The decline in attendance of Super Screen produced movies might be completely unrelated. There are possibilites that the economy of the country or the world is unstable and is on the decline over the past year. This might be causing people to consider movie going to be a unnecessary luxury to indulge in. It might also be possible that a deadly disease on the loose and the people are taking extra precaution to avoid movie theatres. The director seems completely ignorant of these possibilities and thus, doesn't provide any statistics to defend these.

Secondly, it might be possible that the movies produced might be popular among the reviewers' circle whereas doesn't appeal to the taste of the general public. The genre on focus could've shifted from previously popular movies, which might be a change that the critics would appreciate but not so much by the viewers targeted by the company. As a result, the fewer people might be watching the movies in spite of reading the positive reviews. Thus, redirecting the budget to advertisement department from spending it to improve the quality of the movies is completely unwarranted. Ignoring the improvement of quality of the movies might lead to a greater decline with more losses for the company to endure.

Hence, with the above possibilites as evidence, it can be concluded that the argument put forth by the advertising director is facile and hastily jumps to an improper conclusion on the basis of unwarranted assumptions. The argument could have been strengthened by taking a poll directly on the intended audience requesting reason for their absence in the company's newly released movies. A survey on what the audience wish to see on the movie screens could have also helped the director's case.

Average: 5.3 (2 votes)
Essay Categories
Essays by the user:


Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 463, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...ocated to advertising these reviews The authors assumption is flagrant here as he does ...
Line 3, column 848, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'an' instead of 'a' if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g. 'an article', 'an hour'
Suggestion: an people to consider movie going to be a unnecessary luxury to indulge in It mig...
Line 3, column 1082, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...gnorant of these possibilities and thus doesnt provide any statistics to defend these ...
Line 5, column 108, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...ular among the reviewers circle whereas doesnt appeal to the taste of the general publ...
Line 5, column 142, Rule ID: GENERAL_XX[1]
Message: Use simply 'public'.
Suggestion: public
...ereas doesnt appeal to the taste of the general public The genre on focus couldve shifted from...
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Hence,
...ore losses for the company to endure Hence with the above possibilites as evidence...

Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, hence, if, second, secondly, so, then, thus, whereas, while, as a result, in spite of

Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments

Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 19.6327345309 107% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.9520958084 100% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 21.0 28.8173652695 73% => OK
Preposition: 70.0 55.5748502994 126% => OK
Nominalization: 19.0 16.3942115768 116% => OK

Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2390.0 2260.96107784 106% => OK
No of words: 472.0 441.139720559 107% => OK
Chars per words: 5.06355932203 5.12650576532 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.6610686524 4.56307096286 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.71035114029 2.78398813304 97% => OK
Unique words: 208.0 204.123752495 102% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.440677966102 0.468620217663 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 777.6 705.55239521 110% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK

A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 0.0 4.96107784431 0% => OK
Article: 2.0 8.76447105788 23% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.70958083832 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 0.0 4.22255489022 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.

Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 1.0 19.7664670659 5% => 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: 472.0 22.8473053892 2066% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 0.0 57.8364921388 0% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 2390.0 119.503703932 2000% => Less chars_per_sentence wanted.
Words per sentence: 472.0 23.324526521 2024% => Less words per sentence wanted.
Discourse Markers: 96.0 5.70786347227 1682% => Less transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 6.0 5.25449101796 114% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 1.0 8.20758483034 12% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 0.0 6.88822355289 0% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.67664670659 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?

Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.372352158912 0.218282227539 171% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.372352158912 0.0743258471296 501% => Sentence topic similarity is high.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0701772020484 0% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.230776809531 0.128457276422 180% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0925015275317 0.0628817314937 147% => OK

Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 238.4 14.3799401198 1658% => Automated_readability_index is high.
flesch_reading_ease: -407.6 48.3550499002 -843% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 0.0 7.1628742515 0% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 187.4 12.197005988 1536% => Flesch kincaid grade is high.
coleman_liau_index: 13.55 12.5979740519 108% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 30.63 8.32208582834 368% => Dale chall readability score is high.
difficult_words: 107.0 98.500998004 109% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 58.0 12.3882235529 468% => Linsear_write_formula is high.
gunning_fog: 190.8 11.1389221557 1713% => Gunning_fog is high.
text_standard: 31.0 11.9071856287 260% => The average readability is very high. Good job!
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.

Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 6 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 4 2
No. of Sentences: 20 15
No. of Words: 476 350
No. of Characters: 2384 1500
No. of Different Words: 217 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.671 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.008 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.726 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 183 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 134 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 93 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 53 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 23.8 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.218 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.55 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.333 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.498 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.095 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5