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 memo from the advertising director suggests that the budget for advertisement should be increased inorder to reach public and spread awareness reagrding the availabiliy of good quality movies. This recommendation is based on the recent report from the marketing department that suggested that positive reviews of the Super Screen Movies are increasing even after dcrease in number of attendees yet they are not reaching the general public. However, before this recomendation is implemented, third questions need to be answered to evaluate the effectiveness of the recommendation.
First of all, on what basis was the report generated ? In other words, was the report based on all the people that attended the movies and did each person only review the movie once ? For instance, it can be the case that one person reviewed the movie multiple times. Thus, increasing the number of reviews but the number of attendants remained the same as the previous years. If this is the case, then the report that the recommendation is based on is not reliable and the whole argument of the director does not hold water anymore.
Secondly, what was the people's engagement with the reviews during the past year and before that ? Maybe people are aware of the reviews and they might have been browsing through them but they are still not interested in watching those movies. Perhaps a bad experience with the movies made them dislike the production company and they are not interested in watching those movies anymore. In this scenario, even spending more money might not convince people as they already know the reviews and have already made their mind to stay away from those movies.
Another question that needs to be answered is what is the content of those positive reviews ? Maybe the reviews were regarding the cast of the movie. People might have liked the casting choices and would have given a positive regarding that but they still might not have liked the quality of the movie. In this situation, the increase in the positive reviews does not mean people enjoy the quality and the author's argument on this base would be considerably weakened.
Therefore, before proceeding with the recommendation, the above questions need to be answered to gauge wether the assumptions on which the argument is based stands true or not.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 4 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 6 2
No. of Sentences: 17 15
No. of Words: 384 350
No. of Characters: 1902 1500
No. of Different Words: 179 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.427 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.953 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.561 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 131 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 96 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 69 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 35 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.588 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.531 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.647 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.33 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.58 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.12 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 429, Rule ID: GENERAL_XX[1]
Message: Use simply 'public'.
Suggestion: public
...attendees yet they are not reaching the general public. However, before this recomendation is ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 24, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'peoples'' or 'people's'?
Suggestion: peoples'; people's
...ater anymore. Secondly, what was the peoples engagement with the reviews during the ...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 407, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...t mean people enjoy the quality and the authors argument on this base would be consider...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, if, may, regarding, second, secondly, so, still, then, therefore, third, thus, for instance, first of all, in other words
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 24.0 19.6327345309 122% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.9520958084 77% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 11.1786427146 125% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 13.6137724551 73% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 29.0 28.8173652695 101% => OK
Preposition: 48.0 55.5748502994 86% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 16.3942115768 98% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1945.0 2260.96107784 86% => OK
No of words: 384.0 441.139720559 87% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.06510416667 5.12650576532 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.4267276788 4.56307096286 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.63535055295 2.78398813304 95% => OK
Unique words: 182.0 204.123752495 89% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.473958333333 0.468620217663 101% => OK
syllable_count: 604.8 705.55239521 86% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 4.96107784431 40% => OK
Article: 3.0 8.76447105788 34% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 19.7664670659 86% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 48.5468417897 57.8364921388 84% => OK
Chars per sentence: 114.411764706 119.503703932 96% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.5882352941 23.324526521 97% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.35294117647 5.70786347227 146% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.88822355289 73% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.67664670659 107% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.345984605479 0.218282227539 159% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.109055763856 0.0743258471296 147% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.179177218866 0.0701772020484 255% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.200394458297 0.128457276422 156% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.234879426355 0.0628817314937 374% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.7 14.3799401198 95% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 48.3550499002 102% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.42 12.5979740519 99% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.89 8.32208582834 95% => OK
difficult_words: 77.0 98.500998004 78% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 15.0 12.3882235529 121% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => 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.