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 the memo from the advertising director, it is stated that in order to increase the attendance for Super Screen-produced movies they need to allocate most of the budget towards advertising. The author has come to this conclusion based on the fact that fewer people attended the movies at the theatre because they are unaware of the positive reviews of the film. However, the author supports his argument with some unstated questions that, if not substantiated, dramatically weaken the persuasiveness of the argument. In order for the argument to be valid, three questions must be answered and analyzed.
First of all, the writer presumes, without evidence, that the decrease in the count of people is due to the unawareness of positive reviews. The author needs to answer the question of whether the attendance of the audience is significant? By how many numbers has the decrease in the number has occurred? Perhaps previously there were 100 people who attended the screening, out of this 100 people only 50 showed up for the next movie. It is possible that these 50 people do not affect much in the decision of allocating most budget toward advertising. If either of these scenarios has merit, then the conclusion drawn by the author in the original argument is significantly weakened.
Secondly, another question that the author needs to answer is are there any other factors that might have affected the reduced viewerships? Perhaps the author of the memo is basing his claim on only the percent decrease value here. It is likely that people do not like the topics or the theme of the movies, and it is also possible that they have a variety of other options available nearby at a better price range. For example, if there are many theatres in the neighborhood, it is possible that the crowd might divert to other possible available movies. If this is the case, then the author's claim is unwarranted and his argument does not hold water.
Finally, the argument fails to answer the question regarding the return of the people to Super Screen movies. How many people will come back after advertising? Here, the author assumes the role of advertising might help regain viewership. It is possible that people are aware of the advertising and are not willing to come back because they are busy in their lives. Perhaps, the author should study other reasons before allocating the budget. If that were the case, then the conclusion is not entirely accurate.
In conclusion, the argument, as it stands now, is considerably flawed due to its reliance on several unstated questions. If the author is able to provide the answers to the above-mentioned questions and perhaps conduct the systematic study, then it will be possible to evaluate the viability of the proposed recommendation to allocate most of the budget for advertising.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 4 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 6 2
No. of Sentences: 23 15
No. of Words: 474 350
No. of Characters: 2305 1500
No. of Different Words: 208 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.666 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.863 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.68 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 170 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 119 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 89 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 41 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.609 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.862 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.478 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.314 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.497 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.056 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 169, Rule ID: WHETHER[3]
Message: Wordiness: Shorten this phrase to the shortest possible suggestion.
Suggestion: whether; the question whether
...ive reviews. The author needs to answer the question of whether the attendance of the audience is signi...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, first, however, if, regarding, second, secondly, so, then, for example, in conclusion, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 27.0 19.6327345309 138% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 12.9520958084 62% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 11.1786427146 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 13.0 13.6137724551 95% => OK
Pronoun: 34.0 28.8173652695 118% => OK
Preposition: 63.0 55.5748502994 113% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 16.3942115768 98% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2368.0 2260.96107784 105% => OK
No of words: 474.0 441.139720559 107% => OK
Chars per words: 4.99578059072 5.12650576532 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.66599839874 4.56307096286 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.77844176579 2.78398813304 100% => OK
Unique words: 213.0 204.123752495 104% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.449367088608 0.468620217663 96% => OK
syllable_count: 750.6 705.55239521 106% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 7.0 2.70958083832 258% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 19.7664670659 116% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 45.9602441831 57.8364921388 79% => OK
Chars per sentence: 102.956521739 119.503703932 86% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.6086956522 23.324526521 88% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.95652173913 5.70786347227 87% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.67664670659 171% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.127678945911 0.218282227539 58% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0376707048912 0.0743258471296 51% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.069069410724 0.0701772020484 98% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.074308591796 0.128457276422 58% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0706050333079 0.0628817314937 112% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.4 14.3799401198 86% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 48.3550499002 106% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.197005988 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.72 12.5979740519 93% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.06 8.32208582834 97% => OK
difficult_words: 103.0 98.500998004 105% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 12.3882235529 117% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => 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.