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."Based on a survey conducted by their own marketing department and certain comments by some reviewers, the director made flawed reasoning and drew unconvincing conclusions about the problems responsible for their shrinking market.
The above argument contains many assumptions which are unwarranted. For the following reasons the author's reasoning is flawed.
The first assumption relies on the fact that a decrease in attendance is directly related to the lack of awarenesss toward the public. However, while this may be one of the reasons, causality cannot be assured. In fact, could it be that the decrease in attendance is due to a lack of avalability of those movies at the movie theater. The percentage of positive reviews seems to be increasing but a percentage is only relevant if we know the original count of attendees and by how much is that increase. Even if, their was an increase of five percent, which may not be significant enough to make a deduction, it all depends on how many people saw the movie. If originally one percent gave positive reviews but a thousand people watch the movies and now five percent increase and hundred thousand people watch the movies, certainly the success of the movie is not due to its lack of awareness since about nine hundred and ninety nine people went to watch that movie in one year. A head count of viewers will be necessary to disproove or strengthen the argument.
Secondly, the argument assumes that the decrease in audience does not rely in the quality of the movie but on its lack of advertisement. Though it may be true that not enough advertisement has been done to promote those movies, it does not insure that the movies are appreciated by the public. It may be in fact a reason for a decrease in attendance. Certainly, one have encountered rumors that popular website filter reviews to only positive one to shine through. Could it be the case, that either reviewers did not want to bother to write a review, that reviews were filtered or that all together there was an increase in negative reviews disproportionate to the positive ones. In fact, the statement does not mention anything about the negative reviews which could complain of such poor quality. As such, in order to provide some validity to this claim, the author would need to include either a quality survey to prove it may not be the cause or reflect on the nature of negative reviews if any.
Finally, the author claims that increasing next year budget toward promoting those Super Screen movies should help bring more awareness and raise audience.
A fallacy dominate this claim. Although increasing advertisement may help spread awarness maybe the economy will not allow more people to attend next year. Te economical condition in the past year may not mirror the one in the oncoming year. Increasing awarness may not guarrantee that people will spend the money toward watching those movies as the style may be obsolete or people would like to spend their money on better entertainment. To insure that this measure will be successful the author need to certify that the economical situation and interest towards those movies has not changed or improved in order to be effective.
To conclude may fallacies reside in the above claim that needs to be corrected to make a better assessment of the new measured to follow.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 779, Rule ID: NODT_DOZEN[1]
Message: Use simply: 'a hundred'.
Suggestion: a hundred
...ovies and now five percent increase and hundred thousand people watch the movies, certa...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 921, Rule ID: EN_COMPOUNDS
Message: This word is normally spelled with hyphen.
Suggestion: ninety-nine
... awareness since about nine hundred and ninety nine people went to watch that movie in one ...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 241, Rule ID: INSURE_THAT[1]
Message: Did you mean 'ensure' (=make sure)? 'Insure' means 'pay money to insurance company'.
Suggestion: ensure
...ne to promote those movies, it does not insure that the movies are appreciated by the ...
^^^^^^
Line 8, column 11, Rule ID: MASS_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Possible agreement error - use third-person verb forms for singular and mass nouns: 'dominates'.
Suggestion: dominates
...wareness and raise audience. A fallacy dominate this claim. Although increasing adverti...
^^^^^^^^
Line 8, column 31, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “Although” 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.
...dience. A fallacy dominate this claim. Although increasing advertisement may help sprea...
^^^^^^^^
Line 8, column 280, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
.... Increasing awarness may not guarrantee that people will spend the money toward ...
^^
Line 8, column 443, Rule ID: INSURE_THAT[1]
Message: Did you mean 'ensure' (=make sure)? 'Insure' means 'pay money to insurance company'.
Suggestion: ensure
...their money on better entertainment. To insure that this measure will be successful th...
^^^^^^
Line 8, column 523, Rule ID: ECONOMICAL_ECONOMIC[1]
Message: Did you mean 'economic' (=connected with economy)?
Suggestion: economic
...ful the author need to certify that the economical situation and interest towards those mo...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, then, while, in fact
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 26.0 19.6327345309 132% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 23.0 12.9520958084 178% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 11.1786427146 125% => OK
Relative clauses : 19.0 13.6137724551 140% => OK
Pronoun: 37.0 28.8173652695 128% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 76.0 55.5748502994 137% => OK
Nominalization: 19.0 16.3942115768 116% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2597.0 2260.96107784 115% => OK
No of words: 535.0 441.139720559 121% => OK
Chars per words: 4.85420560748 5.12650576532 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.80937282943 4.56307096286 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.63621386612 2.78398813304 95% => OK
Unique words: 241.0 204.123752495 118% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.45046728972 0.468620217663 96% => OK
syllable_count: 835.2 705.55239521 118% => 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
Interrogative: 0.0 0.471057884232 0% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.70958083832 221% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 19.7664670659 116% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 22.8473053892 101% => OK
Sentence length SD: 63.0193957001 57.8364921388 109% => OK
Chars per sentence: 112.913043478 119.503703932 94% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.2608695652 23.324526521 100% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.52173913043 5.70786347227 62% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 8.0 5.25449101796 152% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.20758483034 134% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.88822355289 131% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.67664670659 64% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.11226350468 0.218282227539 51% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0346200565032 0.0743258471296 47% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0412679207934 0.0701772020484 59% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0654155463485 0.128457276422 51% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0450463369326 0.0628817314937 72% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.0 14.3799401198 90% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 48.13 48.3550499002 100% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.197005988 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.15 12.5979740519 89% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.11 8.32208582834 97% => OK
difficult_words: 113.0 98.500998004 115% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 12.3882235529 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.1389221557 101% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 Out of 6 -- The score is based on the average performance of 20,000 argument essays. This e-grader is not smart enough to check on arguments.
---------------------
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.