"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 director concludes that Super Screen Movie Production Company should channel more of its future budget into advertising in order to boost the attendance rate in their movies. He comes to this conclusion based on a report conducted by the marketing department coupled with the feedback received from movie reviewers. While the author's assertion might be true, there are three questions that must be answered in order to assess the credibility of his claim.
Firstly, the author based his claim on a recent report from the marketing department, is the report 100% valid? This might not be true. It is possible that the staff of the marketing department might have made some alterations in the record of attendence. Also, it might have been that, due to carelessness or some other behaviour on the end of the marketers, some of the documents containg the list of persons in attendance were lost. If the above stated examples proves true, then the author's argument does not hold water and should be discredited. question proves that the report.
Secondly, can the occurence which happened in the past year be taken as indicative of future events? Perhaps the turnout at the movies in the past year was just an anomaly. It might have held at an unfavourable season for most of the participants for example during an end of the year session when most students who would have attended the event were preparing for their exams. Posssibly also, the previous year could have been a period of economic recession and as much most people could nor afford to watch the movie. If the above stated examples are true, this diminishes the validity of the author's claim.
Thirdly, are the comments given by the reviewers, which constitute a small percent of the community, a true representation of the people's preference. This might not be the case. It could be that while the reviwers found the movie displayed last year exciting, the people though otherwise. If the above stated examples are true, this diminishes the validity of the argument.
In conclusion, the statement of the director in which he concludes that Super Screen Movie Production Company should channel more of its future budget into advertising in order to boost the attendance rate in their movies stands upon unwarranted three assumptions as shown above. The director should provide answers to the questions in order to further access the credibility of the claim.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 3 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 8 2
No. of Sentences: 19 15
No. of Words: 404 350
No. of Characters: 1981 1500
No. of Different Words: 188 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.483 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.903 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.586 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 133 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 96 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 79 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 50 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.263 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.221 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.632 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.325 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.537 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.091 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
The director concludes that Super Screen...
^^^^
Line 1, column 335, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...eceived from movie reviewers. While the authors assertion might be true, there are thre...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...assess the credibility of his claim. Firstly, the author based his claim on a...
^^^
Line 3, column 364, Rule ID: SOME_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'some'.
Suggestion: some
... behaviour on the end of the marketers, some of the documents containg the list of persons ...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 491, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...e stated examples proves true, then the authors argument does not hold water and should...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 556, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Question
... hold water and should be discredited. question proves that the report. Secondly...
^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...d. question proves that the report. Secondly, can the occurence which happen...
^^^^
Line 7, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...s the validity of the authors claim. Thirdly, are the comments given by the r...
^^^
Line 7, column 134, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'peoples'' or 'people's'?
Suggestion: peoples'; people's
...community, a true representation of the peoples preference. This might not be the case....
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...nishes the validity of the argument. In conclusion, the statement of the dire...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, firstly, if, second, secondly, so, then, third, thirdly, while, for example, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 19.6327345309 92% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 16.0 12.9520958084 124% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 11.1786427146 36% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 12.0 13.6137724551 88% => OK
Pronoun: 25.0 28.8173652695 87% => OK
Preposition: 58.0 55.5748502994 104% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 16.3942115768 104% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2032.0 2260.96107784 90% => OK
No of words: 404.0 441.139720559 92% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.0297029703 5.12650576532 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.48327461151 4.56307096286 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.64477389172 2.78398813304 95% => OK
Unique words: 192.0 204.123752495 94% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.475247524752 0.468620217663 101% => OK
syllable_count: 621.9 705.55239521 88% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 4.96107784431 181% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => 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: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 60.176324248 57.8364921388 104% => OK
Chars per sentence: 101.6 119.503703932 85% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.2 23.324526521 87% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.15 5.70786347227 90% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 10.0 5.25449101796 190% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.88822355289 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 9.0 4.67664670659 192% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.237554975071 0.218282227539 109% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0645148997336 0.0743258471296 87% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0730803477789 0.0701772020484 104% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.135361435224 0.128457276422 105% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0681357058906 0.0628817314937 108% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.4 14.3799401198 86% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 59.64 48.3550499002 123% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 12.197005988 81% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.89 12.5979740519 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.3 8.32208582834 100% => OK
difficult_words: 94.0 98.500998004 95% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 12.3882235529 85% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.9071856287 84% => 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.