In the given memorandum it is suggested that the people are not fully aware of Super Screen produced movie because of the ack of advertising inspite of the content of movie which is positive according to the reviews they got. So, at first glance the argument appeals to be convincing but further reflection reveals that it is rife with holes and assumptions. Stated in this way the argument fails to consider several other factors.
To begin with, argument readily assumes that just because fewer people attended Super Screen-produced movies so they were not aware of the produced film due to lack of advertisements. Here the argument fails to consider that it is highly possible that people knew about it and still they prefer to not watch these movies. Maybe the content was good but what about the genre. Maybe people were not interested in the genre of the Super Screen- produced movie. The argument could have been much clearer if it explicitly stated about people's predilection for genre and what is being produced matches or not.
In addition to this, the argument claims that percentage of positive reviews are increased comparatively, but here the argument fails to give the number of people surveyed in these years. Is it not possible that in past years number of people were way more than recent surveyed people? So even if the 30 percent of people liked it in past so there is high possibility that the good word for movie was spread and people were inclined to see. If the argument could have provided the number of people surveyed it would be cogent to draw conclusion based on that.
Finally, there are some questions that needs to be answered, how reliable was the survey to decide whether the content was really good? What is the probability of getting higher success rate in near future if companies allocates more budget to advertising? Was there any proven success in past because of marketing? Just beacuse public did not watch the produced movied does not means they were not aware of the movies, there could be several other reasons like genre, quality of movie, expense of tickets. Without convincing answers to these questions it is more of wishful thinking that allocating budget would make people attend the movies.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for above mentioned reasons and it is therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts about people's inclination, reports with evidence, exact percenatges and statistics of viewership, what were the reviews and based on that is it really necessary to allocate more funds. Without this information, argument reamins unsubstantiated and open to debate.
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 11 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 9 2
No. of Sentences: 20 15
No. of Words: 449 350
No. of Characters: 2215 1500
No. of Different Words: 208 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.603 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.933 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.588 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 159 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 115 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 76 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 40 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.45 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.276 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.6 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.326 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.547 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.082 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 442, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “If” 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.
...spread and people were inclined to see. If the argument could have provided the nu...
^^
Line 7, column 380, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[3]
Message: The verb 'does' requires base form of the verb: 'mean'
Suggestion: mean
... not watch the produced movied does not means they were not aware of the movies, ther...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, if, may, really, so, still, then, therefore, in addition, in conclusion, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 33.0 19.6327345309 168% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 12.9520958084 46% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 11.1786427146 107% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 13.6137724551 95% => OK
Pronoun: 34.0 28.8173652695 118% => OK
Preposition: 64.0 55.5748502994 115% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 16.3942115768 98% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2266.0 2260.96107784 100% => OK
No of words: 449.0 441.139720559 102% => OK
Chars per words: 5.04677060134 5.12650576532 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.60321845022 4.56307096286 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.6566636626 2.78398813304 95% => OK
Unique words: 213.0 204.123752495 104% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.47438752784 0.468620217663 101% => OK
syllable_count: 710.1 705.55239521 101% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 4.96107784431 20% => OK
Article: 3.0 8.76447105788 34% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.22255489022 166% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 19.7664670659 101% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 56.0555751019 57.8364921388 97% => OK
Chars per sentence: 113.3 119.503703932 95% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.45 23.324526521 96% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.35 5.70786347227 94% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 8.20758483034 158% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.67664670659 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.187443681568 0.218282227539 86% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0615758318545 0.0743258471296 83% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0734547322913 0.0701772020484 105% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.107918233819 0.128457276422 84% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0522419555442 0.0628817314937 83% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.6 14.3799401198 95% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 48.3550499002 102% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.31 12.5979740519 98% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.24 8.32208582834 99% => 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: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => 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.