The author argues that even though the percentage of positive reviews about specific Super Screen movies have inceased during the past year, fewer people have attended such movies and concludes that the contents of such reviews have failed to reach the prospective viewers. Therefore, he suggests that the problem is not with the quality of their movies but with the lack of awareness among the public and hence more budget should be allocated to advertising. However, the author inadvertently raises a few questions that needs to be adequately answered to decide whether his recommendation is sound.
First, in talking about the percentage of positive reviews about specific Super Screen movies, a pertinent question that comes to our mind is "What is the absolute number of reviews?". A percentage increase does not necessarily amount to an incease in the absolute numbers. If the number of reviewers has decreased more than the number of positive reviews, then the percentage of positive reviews is likely to increase, but such an increase does not necessarily show that the number of postive reviews have increased over the year and hence directly contradicts to the authors supposition that the Super Screen-produced movie positive reviews have increased.
Second, the author directly relates the attendance of people in Super Screen produced movies to the public's lack of awareness of these movies. However, there might be other global or national causes which have prevented people to visit movie theatres altogether and hence similar trends is manifest across all movies released during that time. In looking into the specifics of the report of the marketing department from the previous year, the author fails to look into the question as to whether similar trends were prevalent for other movies as well. Unless such a question is answered, the author's argument that the lack of attendance in Super Screen movies was due to causes which are specific to itself stands unreasonable.
Furthermore, the author directly concludes that the problem doesn't lie in the quality of their movies but in the publicity of such movies based on the percentage of positive reviews. However the question regarding such a conclusion is whether those who attended the movies, albeit in small numbers, did actually feel that the movies were worth the money. Had it been so, then they could have also unofficially advertised the movie, verbally to their acquaintances, and this could have compensated the loss due to lack of other official advertising ventures. Also, how allocating more budget to advertising will allow the production company to maintain its quality of movies with a limited budget needs to be answered.
In conclusion, the author may be true in his recommendation that more budget needs to be allocated in advertising their movies. However, as it stands now his memo presents certain unanswered questions which needs evaluation to decide whether his argument stands reasonable. Precisely, questions on how does the percentage of positive reviews actually depict an increase in its absolute numbers, whether other movies observed similar trends during the previous year, whether those who visited the movie actually felt the movie had a superior quality, and whether allocation of more budget to advertising will not impact the quality of its movies needs to be ascertained to make the author's argument more persuasive.
Essay evaluations by e-grader
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 579, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...r and hence directly contradicts to the authors supposition that the Super Screen-produ...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 470, Rule ID: WHETHER[2]
Message: Wordiness: Shorten this phrase to the shortest possible suggestion.
Suggestion: whether; the question whether
...ous year, the author fails to look into the question as to whether similar trends were prevalent for other...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 593, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...Unless such a question is answered, the authors argument that the lack of attendance in...
^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 61, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...hor directly concludes that the problem doesnt lie in the quality of their movies but ...
^^^^^^
Line 4, column 183, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: However,
... on the percentage of positive reviews. However the question regarding such a conclusio...
^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 696, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[2]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'need'?
Suggestion: need
...quality of movies with a limited budget needs to be answered. In conclusion, the aut...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 681, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...ies needs to be ascertained to make the authors argument more persuasive.
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, first, furthermore, hence, however, if, look, may, regarding, second, so, then, therefore, well, as to, in conclusion, talking about
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.6327345309 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 12.9520958084 54% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 17.0 13.6137724551 125% => OK
Pronoun: 33.0 28.8173652695 115% => OK
Preposition: 79.0 55.5748502994 142% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 16.3942115768 98% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2896.0 2260.96107784 128% => OK
No of words: 546.0 441.139720559 124% => OK
Chars per words: 5.30402930403 5.12650576532 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.83390555256 4.56307096286 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.76934705262 2.78398813304 99% => OK
Unique words: 229.0 204.123752495 112% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.419413919414 0.468620217663 89% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 909.0 705.55239521 129% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 4.96107784431 20% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 19.7664670659 86% => OK
Sentence length: 32.0 22.8473053892 140% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 86.9190849908 57.8364921388 150% => OK
Chars per sentence: 170.352941176 119.503703932 143% => OK
Words per sentence: 32.1176470588 23.324526521 138% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.0 5.70786347227 158% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 7.0 5.25449101796 133% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.20758483034 134% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.88822355289 58% => 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: 0.241986775526 0.218282227539 111% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0822568450601 0.0743258471296 111% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0634039828061 0.0701772020484 90% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.144149709703 0.128457276422 112% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0675347408824 0.0628817314937 107% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 19.6 14.3799401198 136% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 30.54 48.3550499002 63% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 17.0 12.197005988 139% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.05 12.5979740519 112% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.67 8.32208582834 104% => OK
difficult_words: 119.0 98.500998004 121% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 12.3882235529 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 14.8 11.1389221557 133% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 579, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...r and hence directly contradicts to the authors supposition that the Super Screen-produ...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 470, Rule ID: WHETHER[2]
Message: Wordiness: Shorten this phrase to the shortest possible suggestion.
Suggestion: whether; the question whether
...ous year, the author fails to look into the question as to whether similar trends were prevalent for other...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 593, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...Unless such a question is answered, the authors argument that the lack of attendance in...
^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 61, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...hor directly concludes that the problem doesnt lie in the quality of their movies but ...
^^^^^^
Line 4, column 183, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: However,
... on the percentage of positive reviews. However the question regarding such a conclusio...
^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 696, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[2]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'need'?
Suggestion: need
...quality of movies with a limited budget needs to be answered. In conclusion, the aut...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 681, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...ies needs to be ascertained to make the authors argument more persuasive.
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, first, furthermore, hence, however, if, look, may, regarding, second, so, then, therefore, well, as to, in conclusion, talking about
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.6327345309 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 12.9520958084 54% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 17.0 13.6137724551 125% => OK
Pronoun: 33.0 28.8173652695 115% => OK
Preposition: 79.0 55.5748502994 142% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 16.3942115768 98% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2896.0 2260.96107784 128% => OK
No of words: 546.0 441.139720559 124% => OK
Chars per words: 5.30402930403 5.12650576532 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.83390555256 4.56307096286 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.76934705262 2.78398813304 99% => OK
Unique words: 229.0 204.123752495 112% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.419413919414 0.468620217663 89% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 909.0 705.55239521 129% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 4.96107784431 20% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 19.7664670659 86% => OK
Sentence length: 32.0 22.8473053892 140% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 86.9190849908 57.8364921388 150% => OK
Chars per sentence: 170.352941176 119.503703932 143% => OK
Words per sentence: 32.1176470588 23.324526521 138% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.0 5.70786347227 158% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 7.0 5.25449101796 133% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.20758483034 134% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.88822355289 58% => 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: 0.241986775526 0.218282227539 111% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0822568450601 0.0743258471296 111% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0634039828061 0.0701772020484 90% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.144149709703 0.128457276422 112% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0675347408824 0.0628817314937 107% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 19.6 14.3799401198 136% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 30.54 48.3550499002 63% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 17.0 12.197005988 139% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.05 12.5979740519 112% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.67 8.32208582834 104% => OK
difficult_words: 119.0 98.500998004 121% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 12.3882235529 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 14.8 11.1389221557 133% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.