The author asserts that the Super Screen Movie Production Company should increase the budget for advertisement in the next year to attract more audience. However, this is not necessarily true as the argument is based on several questionable assumptions.
First, the author assumes that the fewer viewers in the past year is due to the public's lack of awareness about the movie. However, it might not be true. It is likely that there were not many movies released in the past year that there were less viewers in total. Therefore, the author should substantiate the information about the number of released movies in the past years.
Second, even if there were enough number of movies released during the past year, the author's presumption that the positive review are not well known among the public can be wrong. It is possible that the lack of viewers was due to other reasons. For instance, a number of theaters of the company were closed in the past year. Also, it can be that the schedule of movies were arranged mostly during the week days or night times in the past year that people rather gave up going to the theater. Therefore, the author should consider the alternative issues for the decrease of the audience.
Lastly, considering that the public awareness was the direct reason for less audience, the author's assumption that the budget increase will ensure the enhanced public awareness is not necessarily true. It is likely that the company already spend big percentage of its budget in the advertisement. If so, their failure in advertisement can be due to their lack of advertisement skills. If so, it is uncertain whether the mere increase of budget will improve the effect of advertisement of the company. Thus, the author should provide information about the current budget they spend on the advertisement to support or damage the argument.
To sum up, the author's argument that the company should increase the budget for advertisement is unpersuasive as it needs further evidence such as the number of movie released in the past years, the alternative issues for the decreased viewers, and the current budget spent for the advertisement.
Essay evaluation report
argument 1 and argument 2 can be put together.
argument 3 -- OK
--------------------
Let's analyze the structure of the statement and argue accordingly:
condition 1:
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. //suppose there are 20 movies, while only 2 specific Super Screen movies got more positive reviews, other movies kept same or less reviews, then the percentage of positive reviews can increase, but totally fewer people attended Super Screen-produced movies.
condition 2:
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. //you lost this argument. Maybe people watch movies by Internet, DVD, Phone...
conclusion:
Super Screen should therefore allocate a greater share of its budget next year to reaching the public through advertising. //your argument 3
--------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 17 15
No. of Words: 361 350
No. of Characters: 1763 1500
No. of Different Words: 148 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.359 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.884 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.651 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 133 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 84 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 58 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 30 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.235 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.49 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.765 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.381 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.58 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.095 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
The author asserts that the Super Screen...
^^
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...on several questionable assumptions. First, the author assumes that the fewer...
^^^^^^
Line 3, column 248, Rule ID: FEWER_LESS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'fewer'? The noun viewers is countable.
Suggestion: fewer
...leased in the past year that there were less viewers in total. Therefore, the author...
^^^^
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... released movies in the past years. Second, even if there were enough number...
^^^^^^
Line 5, column 93, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...vies released during the past year, the authors presumption that the positive review ar...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...es for the decrease of the audience. Lastly, considering that the public awar...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 99, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...he direct reason for less audience, the authors assumption that the budget increase wil...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...t to support or damage the argument. To sum up, the authors argument that the...
^^^^^^
Line 9, column 22, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...e the argument. To sum up, the authors argument that the company should increa...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, however, if, lastly, second, so, therefore, thus, well, for instance, such as, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 19.6327345309 107% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.9520958084 85% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 11.1786427146 27% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 12.0 13.6137724551 88% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 28.8173652695 83% => OK
Preposition: 49.0 55.5748502994 88% => OK
Nominalization: 21.0 16.3942115768 128% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1809.0 2260.96107784 80% => OK
No of words: 361.0 441.139720559 82% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.01108033241 5.12650576532 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.35889894354 4.56307096286 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.70712669177 2.78398813304 97% => OK
Unique words: 152.0 204.123752495 74% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.421052631579 0.468620217663 90% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 561.6 705.55239521 80% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 4.96107784431 161% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 19.7664670659 86% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 59.3670186768 57.8364921388 103% => OK
Chars per sentence: 106.411764706 119.503703932 89% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.2352941176 23.324526521 91% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.94117647059 5.70786347227 104% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 9.0 5.25449101796 171% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => OK
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: 0.144190972869 0.218282227539 66% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0511664383835 0.0743258471296 69% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.05329731355 0.0701772020484 76% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0955595618656 0.128457276422 74% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0438392043695 0.0628817314937 70% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.8 14.3799401198 89% => Automated_readability_index is low.
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: 11.78 12.5979740519 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.43 8.32208582834 89% => OK
difficult_words: 63.0 98.500998004 64% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 12.3882235529 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => 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.