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 main recommendation as per the given memo from the advertising director of the Super Screen Movie Production Company is to allocate a greater share of budget to advertising next year to reach the people.The evidence presented in support of this includes the disparity in the decreased number of movie-goers to Super Screen produced movies as per the report by the marketing department and the increase in positive reviews for the same movies in the past year. In my opinion, there are three important questions that must be answered before this recommendation can be evaluated.
The first is, How many Super Screen produced movies were released in the past year and how do those numbers compare to previous years? It is possible that the reduced footfall to these movies is simply because fewer movies were released than the years before. Maybe, this trend is not just applicable to Super Screen produced movies and fewer people are choosing to watch all kinds of movies in cinemas. If either of these were true, this recommendation would be severely weakened.
The second is, Is the increase in positive reviews applicable to all the Super Screen produced movies released in the year or only one or two? It could be that a couple of the movies were considered extremely good by the viewers and that led to an increase in the number of positive reviews just for those, rather than for all the movies released in the year. It is also possible that, number of reviews in general, both bad and good and have gone up, leading to this increase in positive reviews being effectively negated. If either of these stand true, the argument presented would lose quite a lot of weight.
The third being, How exactly is it ascertained that the public is unaware that the Super Screen movies are of good quality simply because the positive reviews are not reaching them? It is possible that the general public is unaware of the movies as they had limited distribution and did not reach all kinds of people. Maybe, the content of the movies is only relatable for a select few, leading to the increased positive reviews but most people are simply not interested. If either of these things were true, this recommendation would not hold up.
To conclude, the recommendation as it stands is quite flawed. If the answers to these three questions were provided, it would be possible to analyse if the recommendation is reasonable. Without these answers, the recommendation does not hold a lot of water.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 5 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 3 2
No. of Sentences: 17 15
No. of Words: 426 350
No. of Characters: 2022 1500
No. of Different Words: 171 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.543 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.746 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.615 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 147 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 101 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 68 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 32 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 25.059 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 15.322 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.588 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.35 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.583 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.105 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 208, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: The
...vertising next year to reach the people.The evidence presented in support of this i...
^^^
Line 7, column 207, Rule ID: GENERAL_XX[1]
Message: Use simply 'public'.
Suggestion: public
... reaching them? It is possible that the general public is unaware of the movies as they had li...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, if, may, second, so, third, in general, in my opinion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 33.0 19.6327345309 168% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 12.9520958084 54% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 13.6137724551 59% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 32.0 28.8173652695 111% => OK
Preposition: 55.0 55.5748502994 99% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 16.3942115768 73% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2073.0 2260.96107784 92% => OK
No of words: 425.0 441.139720559 96% => OK
Chars per words: 4.87764705882 5.12650576532 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.54043259262 4.56307096286 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.6617641209 2.78398813304 96% => OK
Unique words: 176.0 204.123752495 86% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.414117647059 0.468620217663 88% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 657.9 705.55239521 93% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 4.96107784431 161% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 19.7664670659 86% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 22.8473053892 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 89.1832218459 57.8364921388 154% => OK
Chars per sentence: 121.941176471 119.503703932 102% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.0 23.324526521 107% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.17647058824 5.70786347227 73% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.88822355289 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.67664670659 86% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.289404615751 0.218282227539 133% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0894785962867 0.0743258471296 120% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.116616375914 0.0701772020484 166% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.169967327331 0.128457276422 132% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.128426116265 0.0628817314937 204% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.1 14.3799401198 98% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 54.56 48.3550499002 113% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.32 12.5979740519 90% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.51 8.32208582834 90% => OK
difficult_words: 71.0 98.500998004 72% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 19.0 12.3882235529 153% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.1389221557 108% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.