"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 advertising director of the Super Screen Movie Production Company has written in a memo that the public is unaware the good quality of the movie that is available in their production. So, in order to make their company more popular, he has asserted that they should allocate greater share of budgets for advertising. However, the author’s argument, as it stands currently, relies on three unwarranted assumptions that, if not substantiated, dramatically reduced the persuasiveness of his argument.
To begin with, the director has assumed that the recent report of marketing department that compares the past year and other years to find out the people's attending is suitable to claim that the movies in their production are not reaching the people. However, this might not be the case: maybe the company was able to show huge number of movies on the super screen in the other years and last year, only a little amount of movies are screened for the people. There is no report on how many movies are shown in the report of comparison. So, without any evidence of it, the author’s argument does not hold water.
Secondly, the author has assumed that the advertising will increase the number of viewers, but they did not show the past advertising records. Maybe in the last year, they have advertised in a maximum length but still could not draw attention to the people. So, maybe the advertising can not solve their issue, maybe there are other reasons like, the price of the movie tickets are very high to buy. If any of these scenarios can be true, then the assertion of the author is rife with holes and assumptions.
Thirdly, the director of the company has assumed that there is no fault in their movies as the percentage of positive reviews by movie reviewers increased in the last year. But, he did not mention about the proportion of the positive reviews increased. Maybe in the other years, positive reviews are 550 out of 2000 but in the last year, the review is 60 out of 200. So, without knowing the other years’ percentages, it will be gullible to think that the positive reviews are increased in other years compared to past years. Also, the review of the viewer may be reaching out very well by the social network, but still, people are not interested to see movies on the super screen. Without knowing this evidence, the argument is flawed.
In conclusion, the argument, as it stands now, is flawed due to its reliance on several unwarranted assumptions. If the author can give three pieces of evidence stated above or perhaps conduct a systematic research study, then it can be determined if the allocation of higher budgets to reaching the public through advertising is fruitful or not.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 2 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 4 2
No. of Sentences: 19 15
No. of Words: 466 350
No. of Characters: 2185 1500
No. of Different Words: 203 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.646 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.689 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.516 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 150 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 110 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 72 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 39 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 24.526 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.219 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.842 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.315 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.538 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.096 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, still, then, third, thirdly, well, in conclusion, to begin with
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 : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 13.6137724551 73% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 30.0 28.8173652695 104% => OK
Preposition: 68.0 55.5748502994 122% => OK
Nominalization: 18.0 16.3942115768 110% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2262.0 2260.96107784 100% => OK
No of words: 466.0 441.139720559 106% => OK
Chars per words: 4.85407725322 5.12650576532 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.64618479453 4.56307096286 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.61069472418 2.78398813304 94% => OK
Unique words: 211.0 204.123752495 103% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.452789699571 0.468620217663 97% => OK
syllable_count: 694.8 705.55239521 98% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 22.8473053892 105% => OK
Sentence length SD: 53.027510761 57.8364921388 92% => OK
Chars per sentence: 119.052631579 119.503703932 100% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.5263157895 23.324526521 105% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.0 5.70786347227 105% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 8.20758483034 146% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.67664670659 21% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.248469715486 0.218282227539 114% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0774809945553 0.0743258471296 104% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0887865723592 0.0701772020484 127% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.140152993767 0.128457276422 109% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.101586864955 0.0628817314937 162% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.7 14.3799401198 95% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 55.58 48.3550499002 115% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.197005988 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.15 12.5979740519 89% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.88 8.32208582834 95% => OK
difficult_words: 90.0 98.500998004 91% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 12.3882235529 117% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.1389221557 104% => 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.