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.
Advertising director concludes that Super screen should allocate a big chunk of their budget next year towards advertising in effort of reaching to maximum people. To support his/her statement director assumes that quality of movies are good but due to lack of awareness among public, it is not working as expected. There are many flaws in directors assumption which needs to be answered.
Firstly, Director mentioned that their team provided a data where it shows that less people attended the super screen movies however, it is not mentioned that how this data was collected. What was the criteria? From which city/state this data was taken from?. If it was city based then it could be the scenario where at the time of movie release there was a festival due to which a certain comunity or group of people were celebrating the festival instead of going for movie.
Secondly, Director mentioned that movie reviewers gave positive reviews to super screen movies which seems very wague as there is no information of movie reviewers. How many people reviewed the movie? What was the gender of the reviewer ? What was the age of the reviewers? . These questions need to be answered as there is a possibility where movie was targeted for female audience so they liked it but Children and males were not keen to watch the movie. So, directors point about good movies seems incorrect as it is not proved with detailed demographic data.
Finally, considering all the questions and points, Director need to back his argument with substantial evidence and data to make it feasible. As of now, directors argument seems very weak.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 2.0 out of 6
Category: Poor Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 10 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 2 2
No. of Sentences: 15 15
No. of Words: 274 350
No. of Characters: 1316 1500
No. of Different Words: 150 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.069 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.803 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.448 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 86 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 67 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 54 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 25 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 18.267 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 11.305 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.467 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.321 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.52 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.083 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 81, Rule ID: FEWER_LESS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'fewer'? The noun people is countable.
Suggestion: fewer
...eam provided a data where it shows that less people attended the super screen movies...
^^^^
Line 5, column 275, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Don't put a space before the full stop
Suggestion: .
...er ? What was the age of the reviewers? . These questions need to be answered as ...
^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, firstly, however, if, second, secondly, so, then
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.6327345309 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 12.9520958084 31% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 11.1786427146 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 13.0 13.6137724551 95% => OK
Pronoun: 23.0 28.8173652695 80% => OK
Preposition: 31.0 55.5748502994 56% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 7.0 16.3942115768 43% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1355.0 2260.96107784 60% => More number of characters wanted.
No of words: 272.0 441.139720559 62% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.98161764706 5.12650576532 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.06108636974 4.56307096286 89% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.54903689846 2.78398813304 92% => OK
Unique words: 152.0 204.123752495 74% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.558823529412 0.468620217663 119% => OK
syllable_count: 423.0 705.55239521 60% => syllable counts are too short.
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: 0.0 8.76447105788 0% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 19.7664670659 76% => 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: 18.0 22.8473053892 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 65.2877391927 57.8364921388 113% => OK
Chars per sentence: 90.3333333333 119.503703932 76% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.1333333333 23.324526521 78% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.6 5.70786347227 81% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.20758483034 61% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.88822355289 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.67664670659 128% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.229064508396 0.218282227539 105% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0740148038209 0.0743258471296 100% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0690958520487 0.0701772020484 98% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.12746333485 0.128457276422 99% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0562187765716 0.0628817314937 89% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.1 14.3799401198 77% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 48.3550499002 110% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 12.197005988 84% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.31 12.5979740519 90% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.59 8.32208582834 103% => OK
difficult_words: 70.0 98.500998004 71% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 12.3882235529 85% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.1389221557 83% => 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.