"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."
The argument states that in a recent report from marketing department of Super Screen Movie Production Company less people attended it than any other year yet the percentage of positive reviews were more than any other year. Therefore they concluded the problem is not with quality content but publics lack of awareness.Therefore they have decided a greater budget next year in reaching people through advertising. Initially this argument looks convincing but after reading carefully we can find many loopholes in it.
Firstly, It is mentioned that a report was generated by marketing people which states less number of people attended Super Screen produced movies than any other year. But they havent mentioned the details of the report. So few questions can be raised on this point like, On what basis they have generated the report? What was the actual count of people in the report in all the years? Is the report reliable? Also they have mentiond the percentage increase in the positive reviews. Here also they have not mentioned the actual percentage increase. So few questions can be raised like, Weather the percentage increase was negligible or with a great difference between two years? What was the actual count of percentage of positive review this year and all other years? How many people have given the review? Therefore without any actual count we cannot decide about the positive reviews and number of people attended.
Secondly, they have mentioned about the percentage increase in the positive review of the movies. But their might be a possibility that the people who liked that movie have given the review and who didn't like havent given the review of the movie. Therefore we cannot completely rely on the percentage increase in the positive reviews.
Also, they have stated that contents of the review is not reaching to the people resulting in less attendes to the movies. Their might be a reason that people are not interested in watching that movies though they are aware about the reviews. There are many factors responsible for people to watch a movie like cast, songs, choreography, etc. People might not have liked these factors and hence are not attending the movie.
Therefore from the above statements we can conclude that instead of allocating greater share of its budget to reaching to public through advartising, they should focus more on what oublic wants. Are they really interested to watch your movies or which genere do they like. Also they should take a proper survey of public and should not take any decision without knowing the interest of people.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 7 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 8 2
No. of Sentences: 23 15
No. of Words: 432 350
No. of Characters: 2125 1500
No. of Different Words: 176 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.559 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.919 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.378 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 162 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 99 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 73 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 44 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 18.783 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.372 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.739 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.337 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.522 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.128 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 112, Rule ID: FEWER_LESS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'fewer'? The noun people is countable.
Suggestion: fewer
...f Super Screen Movie Production Company less people attended it than any other year ...
^^^^
Line 1, column 226, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Therefore,
... reviews were more than any other year. Therefore they concluded the problem is not with ...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 321, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: Therefore
...y content but publics lack of awareness.Therefore they have decided a greater budget next...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 321, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Therefore,
...y content but publics lack of awareness.Therefore they have decided a greater budget next...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 177, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: haven't
...ed movies than any other year. But they havent mentioned the details of the report. So...
^^^^^^
Line 3, column 410, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Also,
... all the years? Is the report reliable? Also they have mentiond the percentage incre...
^^^^
Line 3, column 808, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Therefore,
... How many people have given the review? Therefore without any actual count we cannot deci...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 199, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: didn't
...hat movie have given the review and who didnt like havent given the review of the mov...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 210, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: haven't
...ave given the review and who didnt like havent given the review of the movie. Therefor...
^^^^^^
Line 5, column 248, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Therefore,
...e havent given the review of the movie. Therefore we cannot completely rely on the percen...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 1, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Therefore,
...d hence are not attending the movie. Therefore from the above statements we can conclu...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 68, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...atements we can conclude that instead of allocating greater share of its budget t...
^^
Line 9, column 275, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Also,
...ur movies or which genere do they like. Also they should take a proper survey of pub...
^^^^
Line 11, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...out knowing the interest of people.
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, hence, if, look, really, second, secondly, so, therefore
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 19.6327345309 92% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.9520958084 93% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 11.1786427146 107% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 13.6137724551 88% => OK
Pronoun: 36.0 28.8173652695 125% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 56.0 55.5748502994 101% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 16.3942115768 30% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2178.0 2260.96107784 96% => OK
No of words: 430.0 441.139720559 97% => OK
Chars per words: 5.06511627907 5.12650576532 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.55372829156 4.56307096286 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.50295228601 2.78398813304 90% => OK
Unique words: 178.0 204.123752495 87% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.413953488372 0.468620217663 88% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 682.2 705.55239521 97% => 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: 1.0 8.76447105788 11% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.70958083832 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.22255489022 24% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 19.7664670659 121% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 22.8473053892 74% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 48.4933951688 57.8364921388 84% => OK
Chars per sentence: 90.75 119.503703932 76% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.9166666667 23.324526521 77% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.45833333333 5.70786347227 61% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 14.0 5.25449101796 266% => Less language errors wanted.
Sentences with positive sentiment : 16.0 8.20758483034 195% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.88822355289 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.67664670659 86% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.204804138714 0.218282227539 94% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0641402816176 0.0743258471296 86% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0998607537974 0.0701772020484 142% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.12469204393 0.128457276422 97% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0898011672751 0.0628817314937 143% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.4 14.3799401198 79% => 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: 11.83 12.5979740519 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.42 8.32208582834 89% => OK
difficult_words: 80.0 98.500998004 81% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 12.3882235529 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 11.1389221557 79% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => 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.