In the given memo, the advertising director concludes that greater share of the
budget must be allocated for reaching the prospective audience through advertising.
However, before reaching this conclusion, with many unwarranted assumptions,
viability of this solution must be evaluated by answering following two questions.
Was the quality of film the reason for fewer people attending Super Screen-
produced movies? This might not be the only reason why people showed up in less
numbers to watch movie produced by a certain company. In the past year, there
might be new competitors who launched more appealing movies and audience
preferred watching those movies over the ones produced by Super Screen. Another
possibility can be starcast of the films was not popular enough which led to lesser
viewers showing up for their films. There are multiple movies screened at the same
time and majority of audience might be pulled by another film which has a superior
starcast or better direction. If any of the above mentioned scenarios have merit, the
conclusion reached by the adverising director is flawed.
Were positive movie reviews enough to justify the quality of the films? The
director's stance on the quality of the movies is based on the assumption that higher
percentage of reviewers gave positive reviews. But given the movie was watched
by fewer people, more evidence needs to be provided on the number of reviewers.
Only three movie reviewers were given the opportunity to review and their views
on the film might not align with the majority of the audience. Even if movie
reviewers gave geniunely positive reviews, the audience might not have the same
taste or liking for certain genre which will still be the case if the films are more
advertised. If any of this is true, the director's argurment does not hold water.
To conclude, their might be a possibility that advertising of the movies was not
sufficient in the past year. However, reaching the conclusion that it is the only
factor for the low viewership is not reasonable. In order to evaluate the
recommendation the above mentioned questions need to be answered with more
evidence, perhaps in the form of a systematic research study.
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: 7 2
No. of Sentences: 17 15
No. of Words: 363 350
No. of Characters: 1810 1500
No. of Different Words: 178 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.365 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.986 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.615 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 129 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 101 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 78 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 45 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.353 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 5.302 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.353 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.327 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.526 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.078 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 76, Rule ID: FEWER_LESS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'fewer'? The noun numbers is countable.
Suggestion: fewer
...the only reason why people showed up in less numbers to watch movie produced by a c...
^^^^
Line 18, column 1, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'directors'' or 'director's'?
Suggestion: directors'; director's
... justify the quality of the films? The directors stance on the quality of the movies is ...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, however, if, so, still
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 23.0 19.6327345309 117% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.9520958084 85% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 11.1786427146 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 8.0 13.6137724551 59% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 13.0 28.8173652695 45% => OK
Preposition: 51.0 55.5748502994 92% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 16.3942115768 73% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1900.0 2260.96107784 84% => OK
No of words: 363.0 441.139720559 82% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.23415977961 5.12650576532 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.3649236973 4.56307096286 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.68222528997 2.78398813304 96% => OK
Unique words: 182.0 204.123752495 89% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.501377410468 0.468620217663 107% => OK
syllable_count: 586.8 705.55239521 83% => 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: 5.0 8.76447105788 57% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 8.0 4.22255489022 189% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 19.7664670659 86% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 34.7707270589 57.8364921388 60% => OK
Chars per sentence: 111.764705882 119.503703932 94% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.3529411765 23.324526521 92% => OK
Discourse Markers: 1.58823529412 5.70786347227 28% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 28.0 5.15768463074 543% => Less paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 8.20758483034 158% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 6.88822355289 29% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.67664670659 43% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.187648000176 0.218282227539 86% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0731495147988 0.0743258471296 98% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.074009893771 0.0701772020484 105% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0554362337082 0.128457276422 43% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0585746363206 0.0628817314937 93% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.9 14.3799401198 97% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 48.3550499002 104% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.197005988 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.05 12.5979740519 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.72 8.32208582834 105% => OK
difficult_words: 93.0 98.500998004 94% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 12.3882235529 93% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Maximum six paragraphs wanted.
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.