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 argument presented here is clustered with too many claims and thus the conclusion that was made doesn't seem much satidfactory.
Firstly it is mentioned that the people who watched the movies past year were fundamentally low than any other (previous) years. The less the people watch the movie the less it is bound to get famous among the reviewers, not to mention getting popular into the masses. So when the argument made that there was an increase in the positive review, it was an effect on less viewership the movies got. The reviewers saw the movies gave their review and then that was it. The reviews the movies got were very less and most of them were positive hence the percentage of positive reviews increased. Had more people watched the movies, there would have been less percentage of positivie reviews comparatively.
Then this short claim was made that the contents of the review were not reaching to people. This has not got to do anything with the movies. People doesn't care much about the reviews they watch movies because they want to watch it nonethless.
And then finally this ultimate conclusion is made on the basis of the previous premise that, it is the people's lack of awareness of the availability of good quality movies than the actual quality of the movies. This type of unusual activity doesn't usually occurs. Then why is the people didn't watch these movies? It was claimed that they weren't aware of these films, then what about the previous years, they aware about the films then right. The company Super Screen used the same strategy as before yet they got totally different aftermaths.
The argument is too pretentious. The solution made on the basis of the conclusions is totally wrong. It is not the problem of promotion of the movies it is maybe the problem of the type of the content that they make. Or the number of films they make. Because if you present movies based on the same concept or types of content that at one point masses are going to get fed up of that type of content. Instead of increasing the budget on advertisement, the production house should invest in better writers and different filmmakers in order to release different types of contents.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 6 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 7 2
No. of Sentences: 21 15
No. of Words: 388 350
No. of Characters: 1786 1500
No. of Different Words: 180 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.438 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.603 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.357 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 115 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 80 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 48 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 29 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 18.476 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.986 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.476 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.299 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.501 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.076 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 101, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...s and thus the conclusion that was made doesnt seem much satidfactory. Firstly it i...
^^^^^^
Line 5, column 149, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
... to do anything with the movies. People doesnt care much about the reviews they watch ...
^^^^^^
Line 7, column 242, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...e movies. This type of unusual activity doesnt usually occurs. Then why is the people ...
^^^^^^
Line 7, column 288, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: didn't
... usually occurs. Then why is the people didnt watch these movies? It was claimed that...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 339, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: weren't
... these movies? It was claimed that they werent aware of these films, then what about t...
^^^^^^
Line 9, column 34, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...s. The argument is too pretentious. The solution made on the basis of the concl...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, first, firstly, hence, if, may, so, then, thus
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 19.6327345309 112% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 2.0 12.9520958084 15% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 11.1786427146 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 13.6137724551 88% => OK
Pronoun: 35.0 28.8173652695 121% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 48.0 55.5748502994 86% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 16.3942115768 49% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1829.0 2260.96107784 81% => OK
No of words: 383.0 441.139720559 87% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.77545691906 5.12650576532 93% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.42384287591 4.56307096286 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.41775174957 2.78398813304 87% => OK
Unique words: 185.0 204.123752495 91% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.483028720627 0.468620217663 103% => OK
syllable_count: 561.6 705.55239521 80% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.22255489022 24% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 19.7664670659 106% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 22.8473053892 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 46.1514808394 57.8364921388 80% => OK
Chars per sentence: 87.0952380952 119.503703932 73% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.2380952381 23.324526521 78% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.61904761905 5.70786347227 46% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 5.25449101796 114% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.67664670659 150% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.120118206996 0.218282227539 55% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0376301969563 0.0743258471296 51% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.042460542115 0.0701772020484 61% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0571944421577 0.128457276422 45% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0397992498521 0.0628817314937 63% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.2 14.3799401198 71% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 61.67 48.3550499002 128% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 12.197005988 75% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.44 12.5979740519 83% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.62 8.32208582834 92% => OK
difficult_words: 75.0 98.500998004 76% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 12.3882235529 85% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.1389221557 83% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => 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.