"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 is a text quoted by the director of the advertising sector of a certain movie production company named the Super Screen
Movie Production Company regarding the decline in the number of attendees of the movies produced by the company. Here, the directors believes that this fall is caused by the weakness of the quality of the adversiting process, rather than the quality of the movies since this fall was coupled with an increase of the percentage of their positive movies' reviews. This could be the case, yet the director should have asked some further questions to confirm his belief and recommendations.
The first questions which should be explained is about the nature of the reviewers and their reviews. How many reviews are there? Are the reviewers the same loyal attendees before the decline? The answers of these two questions would give a bigger picture of the reviews and would also answer the parody where the decline of attendees was conconmitant with more positive reviews. In other words, some movies would be having 10/10 on certain rating website but with only one review, which is not reasonible at all to consider this as a true feedback Again, the nature of the attendees should be axamined, because old fans would be very loyal and this would explain this surge in the positive feedbacks where not interested viewers are those who are not watching the movies produced by this company anymore because of the detorioration in the quality of its products, which is adversery to the assumption presented by the director.
Other questions should be answered regarding the competetion in the market of movie production around. As we can clearly see, bedrooms have been turning into a movie theaters, where everyone from any place can easily access the movies without attending the cinema or other theaters, legally and illegally, which has nothing against the quality of advertising at all, nor the quality of products.
In conclusion, the director fails to address very important considirations before noting his assumpption of blaming the advertising efforts of the company to be the reason behind the fall of viewers. Instead, he should have examined the integrity of the reviews and the nature of the reviewers themselves, as well as addressing any other factors that has led to this decline since the world is developing and small computers have become a big part of people's comfy circle.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Sentence: Here, the directors believes that this fall is caused by the weakness of the quality of the adversiting process, rather than the quality of the movies since this fall was coupled with an increase of the percentage of their positive movies' reviews.
Error: adversiting Suggestion: No alternate word
Sentence: The answers of these two questions would give a bigger picture of the reviews and would also answer the parody where the decline of attendees was conconmitant with more positive reviews.
Error: conconmitant Suggestion: concomitant
Sentence: In other words, some movies would be having 10/10 on certain rating website but with only one review, which is not reasonible at all to consider this as a true feedback Again, the nature of the attendees should be axamined, because old fans would be very loyal and this would explain this surge in the positive feedbacks where not interested viewers are those who are not watching the movies produced by this company anymore because of the detorioration in the quality of its products, which is
Error: detorioration Suggestion: deterioration
Error: axamined Suggestion: examined
Error: reasonible Suggestion: reasonable
Sentence: adversery to the assumption presented by the director.
Error: adversery Suggestion: adversary
Sentence: Other questions should be answered regarding the competetion in the market of movie production around.
Error: competetion Suggestion: competition
Sentence: In conclusion, the director fails to address very important considirations before noting his assumpption of blaming the advertising efforts of the company to be the reason behind the fall of viewers.
Error: considirations Suggestion: considerations
Error: assumpption Suggestion: assumption
-------------------------
flaws:
the arguments are not on the right track. need to 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 carefully here: it is only for 'specific Super Screen movies' actually increased. not all of them.
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. //maybe people watch by phone, online, DVD...
conclusion:
Super Screen should therefore allocate a greater share of its budget next year to reaching the public through advertising. //maybe budget has already been enough.
-------------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: ? out of 6
Category: ? Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 9 2
No. of Sentences: 13 15
No. of Words: 403 350
No. of Characters: 1998 1500
No. of Different Words: 198 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.48 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.958 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.603 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 156 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 117 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 71 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 45 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 31 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 21.736 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.538 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.362 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.551 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.096 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 143, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...roduction company named the Super Screen Movie Production Company regarding the d...
^^^
Line 4, column 433, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ds, some movies would be having 10/10 on certain rating website but with only one...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, regarding, so, well, in conclusion, as well as, in other words
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.6327345309 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.9520958084 100% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 11.1786427146 98% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 13.6137724551 73% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 20.0 28.8173652695 69% => OK
Preposition: 61.0 55.5748502994 110% => 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: 2044.0 2260.96107784 90% => OK
No of words: 402.0 441.139720559 91% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.08457711443 5.12650576532 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.47771567384 4.56307096286 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.66045444818 2.78398813304 96% => OK
Unique words: 196.0 204.123752495 96% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.487562189055 0.468620217663 104% => OK
syllable_count: 639.9 705.55239521 91% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 4.96107784431 40% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.76447105788 68% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 19.7664670659 61% => 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: 33.0 22.8473053892 144% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 134.141379605 57.8364921388 232% => The lengths of sentences changed so frequently.
Chars per sentence: 170.333333333 119.503703932 143% => OK
Words per sentence: 33.5 23.324526521 144% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.66666666667 5.70786347227 117% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 6.88822355289 15% => 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: 0.151825984612 0.218282227539 70% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0556219842249 0.0743258471296 75% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0734392516041 0.0701772020484 105% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.111465677411 0.128457276422 87% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.071817663228 0.0628817314937 114% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 19.2 14.3799401198 134% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 37.98 48.3550499002 79% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 16.2 12.197005988 133% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.78 12.5979740519 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.81 8.32208582834 106% => OK
difficult_words: 90.0 98.500998004 91% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 17.5 12.3882235529 141% => OK
gunning_fog: 15.2 11.1389221557 136% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => 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.