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 advertising director of the Super Screen Movie Production Company in a memo recommends that they should allocate a higher budget for the coming year to advertise their movies. The director bases his conclusion on a number of assumptions, which significantly raises few questions, if not substantiated, dramatically weakens the conclusion.
First of all, the director mentions in the memo stating marketing department of the company presented a report in which fewer people attended to watch their produced movies than in any year. But just based on the report's data of the fewest viewers means that their movies doesn't have good content? Or is the company producing a good quality movie and just the advertising of these movies was short? It is possible that the content of these movies was not good that year. And people might have felt the company's movie quality had deteriorated and hence only the initial few days people came to watch the movies and thereafter the news of the movie being that great must have spread amongst the people. Due to which people didn't show up to watch it. Also, is the survey or research done by the marketing department profound enough to actually find the reality of the fewer attendace? Perhaps, the marketing department didn't do their survey in the small cities and the towns where the movies have also been released and insted of that they just did their survey in theb big cities from where they usually get their most viewers. As possibility is that this time it might be other way around that the crowd from the small cities might have liked it much better. If both these questions are not considered by the director, then the claim stands unwarranted and the director's recommendation is not that persuasive.
Further, based on the reviewers' popular verdict the director easily believes that their movie content is actually the same as before, as the postive reviews of their movies have also increased in the past year. And clearly believes that the problem lies with the dearth of awreness within the public. But the director forgot to ask the main question here, was these movies made just for the reviewer? No, of course they must have produced to make the people like it. So why did the director limit itself with review of just these critics? As there is a high chance that the public might have not liked their movies or found that amusing as these critics, which might be because their movies might not be that high qualtiy.
In conclusion, the director's claim here that their movies quality are still good and that the main issue is the lack of advertising of their movie seems to be flawed. Hence to fully evaluate the strength of the claims more information is needed. Namely, we would need to know are the quality of these movies really good? Can the reviewers verdict be assumed as the final verdict from the audience as well? And is the survey from the marketing department reliable enough to base the recommendations upon it.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 15 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 10 2
No. of Sentences: 23 15
No. of Words: 516 350
No. of Characters: 2436 1500
No. of Different Words: 232 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.766 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.721 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.412 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 161 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 103 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 69 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 41 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.435 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.329 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.652 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.299 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.299 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.079 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 214, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'reports'' or 'report's'?
Suggestion: reports'; report's
...than in any year. But just based on the reports data of the fewest viewers means that t...
^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 241, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'viewers'' or 'viewer's'?
Suggestion: viewers'; viewer's
...based on the reports data of the fewest viewers means that their movies doesnt have goo...
^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 273, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
... fewest viewers means that their movies doesnt have good content? Or is the company pr...
^^^^^^
Line 2, column 722, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: didn't
...amongst the people. Due to which people didnt show up to watch it. Also, is the surve...
^^^^^
Line 2, column 813, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...esearch done by the marketing department profound enough to actually find the rea...
^^
Line 2, column 918, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: didn't
...dace? Perhaps, the marketing department didnt do their survey in the small cities and...
^^^^^
Line 2, column 1128, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “As” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...re they usually get their most viewers. As possibility is that this time it might ...
^^
Line 2, column 1362, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'directors'' or 'director's'?
Suggestion: directors'; director's
...en the claim stands unwarranted and the directors recommendation is not that persuasive. ...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 168, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Hence,
...sing of their movie seems to be flawed. Hence to fully evaluate the strength of the c...
^^^^^
Line 4, column 330, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'reviewers'' or 'reviewer's'?
Suggestion: reviewers'; reviewer's
...ty of these movies really good? Can the reviewers verdict be assumed as the final verdict...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, first, hence, if, really, so, still, then, well, in conclusion, of course, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 23.0 19.6327345309 117% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.9520958084 93% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 11.1786427146 134% => OK
Relative clauses : 22.0 13.6137724551 162% => OK
Pronoun: 49.0 28.8173652695 170% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 56.0 55.5748502994 101% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 16.3942115768 55% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2475.0 2260.96107784 109% => OK
No of words: 513.0 441.139720559 116% => OK
Chars per words: 4.82456140351 5.12650576532 94% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.75914943092 4.56307096286 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.44631842882 2.78398813304 88% => OK
Unique words: 235.0 204.123752495 115% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.458089668616 0.468620217663 98% => OK
syllable_count: 748.8 705.55239521 106% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 4.96107784431 40% => OK
Article: 5.0 8.76447105788 57% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 6.0 1.67365269461 358% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 19.7664670659 116% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 55.8316061202 57.8364921388 97% => OK
Chars per sentence: 107.608695652 119.503703932 90% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.3043478261 23.324526521 96% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.69565217391 5.70786347227 82% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 10.0 5.25449101796 190% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 8.20758483034 146% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.88822355289 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.67664670659 150% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.306612032462 0.218282227539 140% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0894729330876 0.0743258471296 120% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0788330095384 0.0701772020484 112% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.191306344023 0.128457276422 149% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0607047274225 0.0628817314937 97% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.4 14.3799401198 86% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 57.61 48.3550499002 119% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.197005988 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.97 12.5979740519 87% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.81 8.32208582834 94% => OK
difficult_words: 100.0 98.500998004 102% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 12.3882235529 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.