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 this argument, the author asserts that fewer people attended Super Screen-produced movies this year than compared to last year, he further claims that though the amount of the people who attended the movie has reduced, the percentage of positive reviews for specific Super Screen movies actually increased. He concluded by stating, the problem is not with the quality of the movie, instead is with the reach to the public, therefore for the next year a greater share of the budget should be allocated to reaching the public through advertising. The argument is a series of unsubstantiated assumptions, is, therefore, unpersuasive in its standing.
Firstly, the author claims that, though the amount of people watching the movie has declined, the positive review for the Super Screen movies had actually increased. They are many loopholes in this statement. The author fails to mention, how are this percentage calculated? How many reviewers have given the reviews? is the number of reviewers count better or less compared to the previous year? On what basis is this rating of the movie done? If the author had provided the above-mentioned details, the statements would have further supported the claim.
Secondly, the author states, because of the lack of awareness about the good quality of the movies are available, the public had not watched a movie. The author did not take facts into consideration to validate this statement, Maybe the public is aware of the good quality of the movies from Super Screen-produced, but there are much better movies available in the market. Maybe, a big stars movies with a larger fan base might have been released from different productions this year, which made a larger amount of people watch those movies instead of the movies produced by Super Screen-production.
In conclusion, the author's evidence lends little credibility to his allegations. To bolster the argument, the author should provide us with more information about, how is the reviewer percentage is calculated, on what based had the reviewers rated the movie, and information about the movies produced by other productions. By providing the above-mentioned details, the author can strengthen the statement and thereby making it more appealing to the reader.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 6 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 3 2
No. of Sentences: 15 15
No. of Words: 363 350
No. of Characters: 1857 1500
No. of Different Words: 172 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.365 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.116 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.806 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 145 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 94 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 70 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 44 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 24.2 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 12.859 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.533 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.364 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.552 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.106 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 318, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Is
... many reviewers have given the reviews? is the number of reviewers count better or...
^^
Line 5, column 381, Rule ID: DT_JJ_NO_NOUN[2]
Message: Probably a noun is missing in this part of the sentence.
... movies available in the market. Maybe, a big stars movies with a larger fan base mig...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, but, first, firstly, if, may, second, secondly, then, therefore, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 19.6327345309 71% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 12.9520958084 39% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 11.1786427146 36% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 5.0 13.6137724551 37% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 18.0 28.8173652695 62% => OK
Preposition: 48.0 55.5748502994 86% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 16.3942115768 73% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1911.0 2260.96107784 85% => OK
No of words: 363.0 441.139720559 82% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.26446280992 5.12650576532 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.3649236973 4.56307096286 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.92258328665 2.78398813304 105% => OK
Unique words: 183.0 204.123752495 90% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.504132231405 0.468620217663 108% => OK
syllable_count: 584.1 705.55239521 83% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 15.0 8.76447105788 171% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.22255489022 166% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 19.7664670659 81% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 81.601834385 57.8364921388 141% => OK
Chars per sentence: 119.4375 119.503703932 100% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.6875 23.324526521 97% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.5 5.70786347227 96% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 6.88822355289 44% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.250128389791 0.218282227539 115% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0738815265789 0.0743258471296 99% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.105258180545 0.0701772020484 150% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.159184641086 0.128457276422 124% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.100468667573 0.0628817314937 160% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.7 14.3799401198 102% => OK
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: 13.52 12.5979740519 107% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.47 8.32208582834 102% => OK
difficult_words: 86.0 98.500998004 87% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 18.5 12.3882235529 149% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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.