The advertising director of the Super screen movies claims in the memo that Super Screen should allocate more budget the following year to reach the public through advertising. Such a claim is made based on the argument that the content of the reviews of movies are not reaching enough prospective viewers and thus the need for the increase in budget. While he/she makes a good point, the argument provided is flawed as it does not address a few important matters. The argument does not indicate the number of viewers or reviewers and uses terms as "few". The argument does not state how much budget has already been allocated towards advertising and who are the prospective viewers.
First, the director mentions the decrease in the number of viewers for the past year. However, he/she fails to point out the number of viewers current and previous viewers and thus a proper comparison cannot be made. A decrease of 1-2 viewers can also mean "fewer" viewers. Moreover, the director only says that the decrease took place during the past year. The decrease can be attributed to many other factors other than the quality of movies. It may be attributed to a national calamity, releases of other movies and many other factors. Therefore, a certain conclusion cannot be made from these points.
Secondly, the directors says the reviews of the movie given by the reviewers are positive. Here, he/she did not mention who are the reviewers and how many people have reviewed the movie. As review of movie can vary from person to person, reviews from a few people cannot be possibly taken into account to determine the quality of a movie. Next, he/she mentions that the content of review is not reaching the "prospective" viewers, but gives no hint as to who are the prospective viewers and how they can be convinced to attend the movie through advertising.
However, the point made in the memo does make a good point, that is, a good quality movie- if advertised properly would attract more viewers. But the argument provided is invalid without the above questions answered properly. If the statistical number of viewers over the last 5-6 years is taken into account, along with the number of reviewers with their reviews, the prospective viewers are marked properly and the reason they are not attending the movies can be accounted for, then the argument will be strong and valid.
Therefore, it can be concluded that the argument is weak to draw such a strong conclusion unless the above mentioned questions are addressed properly.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 480, Rule ID: AGREEMENT_SENT_START[1]
Message: You should probably use 'do'.
Suggestion: do
... a few important matters. The arguments does not indicate the number of viewers or r...
^^^^
Line 3, column 555, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Therefore,
...of other movies and many other factors. Therefore a certain conclusion cannot be made fro...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 147, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: the
...roperly would attract more viewers. But the the argument provided is invalid without th...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 147, Rule ID: DT_DT[1]
Message: Maybe you need to remove one determiner so that only 'the' or 'the' is left.
Suggestion: the; the
...roperly would attract more viewers. But the the argument provided is invalid without th...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, may, moreover, second, secondly, so, then, therefore, thus, while, as to, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 25.0 19.6327345309 127% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.9520958084 108% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 11.1786427146 116% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 13.6137724551 66% => OK
Pronoun: 21.0 28.8173652695 73% => OK
Preposition: 47.0 55.5748502994 85% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 16.3942115768 43% => More nominalization wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2149.0 2260.96107784 95% => OK
No of words: 428.0 441.139720559 97% => OK
Chars per words: 5.02102803738 5.12650576532 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.548423998 4.56307096286 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.74580628151 2.78398813304 99% => OK
Unique words: 193.0 204.123752495 95% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.450934579439 0.468620217663 96% => OK
syllable_count: 663.3 705.55239521 94% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.471057884232 0% => OK
Article: 12.0 8.76447105788 137% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
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: 20.0 19.7664670659 101% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 56.6555160598 57.8364921388 98% => OK
Chars per sentence: 107.45 119.503703932 90% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.4 23.324526521 92% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.9 5.70786347227 103% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.67664670659 128% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.203400949916 0.218282227539 93% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0658327022212 0.0743258471296 89% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.072975834653 0.0701772020484 104% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.101202006884 0.128457276422 79% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0575398553449 0.0628817314937 92% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.9 14.3799401198 90% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 58.62 48.3550499002 121% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 12.197005988 84% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.84 12.5979740519 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.56 8.32208582834 91% => OK
difficult_words: 78.0 98.500998004 79% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 12.3882235529 85% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => 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.