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.
A memo from the advertising director of the Super Screen Movie Production Company states that the budget allocated to advertising must be increased in the next year. This must be done because there is evidence that the positive reviews given by people are actually increased, but the contents of these reviews are not reaching the public due to a lack of proper advertisements. However, before this recommendation can be properly evaluated the following questions must be answered.
Firstly, are there any new production companies started in the past year? In other words, if there is any new company and their making of the movie is interesting, then people may start attracting towards it. As it is new to the market, the company may charge lower prices for the ticket to attract customers. They may be providing various facilities for mesmerizing them. This results in attracting customers to them and loss of our customers. Also, there is evidence that fewer people attended our movies than any other year. If this scenario is true, then the conclusion drawn in the argument gets weakened.
Secondly, are the reviews given by movie reviewers reasonable? It means that there are many instances where the reviews are written due to force or by bribing them. It may be possible that some corrupted people gave money and made them write reviews even though there are less people watching the movie. If the above is true, the evidence doesn't hold water.
Thirdly, is the budget allocated to advertising not sufficient in the previous years? It means that the customers started decreasing only over the past year. Previously, the customers used to watch our movies and they may be in a high number. It means that the reviews reached the public through our advertisements. Hence, it may not be due to a lack of public awareness. There may be various reasons like quality, realistic, continuity, etc. If the above is true, then the conclusion gets weakened.
In conclusion, the argument, as it stands now, is considerably flawed due to its reliance on several unwarranted assumptions. If the author is able to answer the above question with proper evidence( like in a survey by public), then it will be possible to fully evaluate the viability of the recommendation to increase the budget for advertising next year to increase the awareness in public about the quality of our movies.
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: 5 2
No. of Sentences: 22 15
No. of Words: 399 350
No. of Characters: 1933 1500
No. of Different Words: 186 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.469 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.845 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.675 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 135 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 102 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 74 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 47 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 18.136 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.818 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.773 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.292 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.496 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.093 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 273, Rule ID: FEWER_LESS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'fewer'? The noun people is countable.
Suggestion: fewer
...hem write reviews even though there are less people watching the movie. If the above...
^^^^
Line 5, column 340, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...vie. If the above is true, the evidence doesnt hold water. Thirdly, is the budget a...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, first, firstly, hence, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, then, third, thirdly, in conclusion, in other words
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 28.0 19.6327345309 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.9520958084 93% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 11.1786427146 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 8.0 13.6137724551 59% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 34.0 28.8173652695 118% => OK
Preposition: 50.0 55.5748502994 90% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 16.3942115768 73% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1998.0 2260.96107784 88% => OK
No of words: 398.0 441.139720559 90% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.02010050251 5.12650576532 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.46653527281 4.56307096286 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.77076787503 2.78398813304 100% => OK
Unique words: 187.0 204.123752495 92% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.469849246231 0.468620217663 100% => OK
syllable_count: 625.5 705.55239521 89% => 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: 5.0 8.76447105788 57% => OK
Subordination: 8.0 2.70958083832 295% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 19.7664670659 116% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 22.8473053892 74% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 56.0922815133 57.8364921388 97% => OK
Chars per sentence: 86.8695652174 119.503703932 73% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.3043478261 23.324526521 74% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.86956521739 5.70786347227 103% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.20758483034 122% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.88822355289 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 9.0 4.67664670659 192% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.209574884456 0.218282227539 96% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0616569509985 0.0743258471296 83% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0954079913971 0.0701772020484 136% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.106426562303 0.128457276422 83% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0696339790358 0.0628817314937 111% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.9 14.3799401198 76% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 54.22 48.3550499002 112% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 12.197005988 81% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.54 12.5979740519 92% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.77 8.32208582834 93% => OK
difficult_words: 83.0 98.500998004 84% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 11.1389221557 79% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => 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.