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 has been concluded that a greater share of the budget should be allocated for advertising to increase the number of viewers of their movie. However, while the conclusion might hold water, it rests on several unwarranted assumptions that, if not substantiated, dramatically weaken the persuasiveness of the argument. Thus, the following questions must be answered to make the argument more plausible.
Firstly, Are the number of movie reviewers fairly reviewed the movie? Also, is it true that the percentage of positive reviewers has increased over the time? The director of the Super Screen Movie Production Company did not provide sufficient evidence regarding the increased number of movie positive reviewers. It is possible that last year only 100 out of 1000 people came to watch movies, and say, 80%(80 out of those 100) had reviewed positively. If it is the case, then the director's recommendation is critically flawed. Instead, he should compare the percentage of last year with the percentage beyond last year's data to validate his argument.
Secondly, Increasing the budget for advertising is liable if the people are utterly disappointed with the context of the movie produced by the production company? It is possible that the vast majority of the people do not have an interest in the plot of the movie, and they are not inclined to watch those movies produced by the current production company. If the director is able to provide more evidence that his movie's plot is well enough to be likable by more people, then the effectiveness of the argument might have resulted.
Thirdly, Is the plan of allocating more budget for advertising is fruitful? The director, without compelling evidence, argues that allocating more funds for advertisement will effectively increase the number of their potential viewers, thinking that due to the paucity of advertisement of their positive response hinders the increasing number of viewers. Nevertheless, it might not be the case. Maybe another giant movie production company may have been established nearby with sophisticated picture quality in addition to the low ticket cost. If this holds true, then, the argument is significantly weakened/
In conclusion, the argument, as it stands now, is critically flawed due to its reliance on several unfolded assumptions, as mentioned in the prior paragraphs, If the director is able to provide more compelling evidence or answer all those questions in the best possible way, then the argument will be substantially hold water.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 5 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 3 2
No. of Sentences: 18 15
No. of Words: 418 350
No. of Characters: 2147 1500
No. of Different Words: 191 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.522 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.136 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.902 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 160 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 129 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 99 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 57 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 23.222 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 12.136 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.722 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.329 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.538 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.078 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 478, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'directors'' or 'director's'?
Suggestion: directors'; director's
...positively. If it is the case, then the directors recommendation is critically flawed. In...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 612, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'years'' or 'year's'?
Suggestion: years'; year's
...st year with the percentage beyond last years data to validate his argument. Secon...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, firstly, however, if, may, nevertheless, regarding, second, secondly, so, then, third, thirdly, thus, well, while, in addition, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 23.0 19.6327345309 117% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.9520958084 69% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 11.1786427146 27% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 8.0 13.6137724551 59% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 28.0 28.8173652695 97% => OK
Preposition: 50.0 55.5748502994 90% => OK
Nominalization: 21.0 16.3942115768 128% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2207.0 2260.96107784 98% => OK
No of words: 417.0 441.139720559 95% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.29256594724 5.12650576532 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.5189133491 4.56307096286 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.96706750554 2.78398813304 107% => OK
Unique words: 203.0 204.123752495 99% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.486810551559 0.468620217663 104% => OK
syllable_count: 692.1 705.55239521 98% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 5.0 8.76447105788 57% => OK
Subordination: 8.0 2.70958083832 295% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 19.7664670659 86% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 22.8473053892 105% => OK
Sentence length SD: 85.9439344084 57.8364921388 149% => OK
Chars per sentence: 129.823529412 119.503703932 109% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.5294117647 23.324526521 105% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.05882352941 5.70786347227 159% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.88822355289 73% => OK
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: 0.215958486936 0.218282227539 99% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0716328938641 0.0743258471296 96% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0816978319364 0.0701772020484 116% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.118702029877 0.128457276422 92% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0663465045753 0.0628817314937 106% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.8 14.3799401198 110% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 38.66 48.3550499002 80% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 12.197005988 113% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.7 12.5979740519 109% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.61 8.32208582834 103% => OK
difficult_words: 100.0 98.500998004 102% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 12.3882235529 93% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.1389221557 104% => 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.