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 that Super Screen should allocate a greater share of its budget next year to reaching the public through advertising is not logically convincing since it ignores certain important assumptions.
Firstly, the argument describes how the Super Screen movies reviewed well. But it does not tell us the total number of reviewers who made the review for the movies. There might be a negligible number of reviewers reviewed the movies. That's why the people did not take it seriously. The argument might have strengthened if it mentioned the huge number of positive review of the movies.
Secondly, the argument omits the economic fact of that particular year. The economic condition of the year might have been worse. That's why many people were not in the position to afford the expenses for going out and watching movies. A person will not go for watching movies if he or she is in a bad financial position. The argument would have strengthened if it described the economic condition of that year as a good one.
Finally, the argument does not tell us about the movies of other production. Those movies could have a strong impact on the people and maybe those movies review was on the high note. The argument might have strengthened if it described the situation of the movies of other production as not good.
Therefore, the argument is not logically convincing. It does not meet the points to call it a valid argument.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
argument 1 -- not OK
argument 2 and argument 3 --OK, but can be put together
--------------------
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. //
look at the key words: specific Super Screen movies, we may think like this:
suppose there are 10 movies, but only one movie got a hug positive reviews by movie reviewers, other 9 movies are not welcome, so 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. //your argument 2 and argument 3, and we may also say: people may watch by DVD, or cellphone or TV or online.
conclusion:
Super Screen should therefore allocate a greater share of its budget next year to reaching the public through advertising. //maybe the budget has been pretty enough.
flaws:
No. of Words: 244 350
Minimum 250 words wanted. paraphrase the prompts can help put more content.
----------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 2.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 16 15
No. of Words: 244 350
No. of Characters: 1161 1500
No. of Different Words: 117 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 3.952 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.758 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.553 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 86 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 55 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 49 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 26 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 15.25 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 5.75 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.688 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.38 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.61 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.145 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 235, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: That's
...umber of reviewers reviewed the movies. Thats why the people did not take it seriousl...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 131, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: That's
...tion of the year might have been worse. Thats why many people were not in the positio...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, firstly, if, may, second, secondly, so, then, therefore, well
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 7.0 19.6327345309 36% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 12.9520958084 62% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 11.1786427146 36% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 4.0 13.6137724551 29% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 18.0 28.8173652695 62% => OK
Preposition: 22.0 55.5748502994 40% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 16.0 16.3942115768 98% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1197.0 2260.96107784 53% => More number of characters wanted.
No of words: 244.0 441.139720559 55% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.90573770492 5.12650576532 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.95227774224 4.56307096286 87% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.62874296436 2.78398813304 94% => OK
Unique words: 120.0 204.123752495 59% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.491803278689 0.468620217663 105% => OK
syllable_count: 367.2 705.55239521 52% => syllable counts are too short.
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 4.96107784431 40% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.70958083832 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 0.0 4.22255489022 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 19.7664670659 81% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 15.0 22.8473053892 66% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 36.4699683815 57.8364921388 63% => OK
Chars per sentence: 74.8125 119.503703932 63% => OK
Words per sentence: 15.25 23.324526521 65% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.125 5.70786347227 90% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.67664670659 21% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.123579928943 0.218282227539 57% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0442194448042 0.0743258471296 59% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0487298228856 0.0701772020484 69% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0695336813699 0.128457276422 54% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0424132955411 0.0628817314937 67% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 9.3 14.3799401198 65% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 64.71 48.3550499002 134% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.0 12.197005988 66% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.61 12.5979740519 84% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.16 8.32208582834 86% => OK
difficult_words: 43.0 98.500998004 44% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 6.5 12.3882235529 52% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 8.0 11.1389221557 72% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.9071856287 67% => The average readability is low. Need to imporve the language.
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Minimum 250 words wanted.
Rates: 33.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 2.0 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.