Super screen should allocate a greater share of its budget next year to reaching the public.
The argument conludes that Super screen should allocate a greater share of its budget next year to reaching the public. Even though this conclusion seems logically sound, considering the premises upon which it is built, some of the premises occur because of some fallacious assumptions.
Firstly, it is assumed that the results of the survey done by the marketing department is wholistic and aboveboard. However, no evidence is providedd to ascertain the plausibility of these reults. Be as it may, the result could be inconsistent with the true trend of things. For example, The number of reviews could have been overshot, making the result fallacious and hence the coonclusion wrong. If the results are overshot, it will mean that there are less reviews than were reported. In fact, the true number of review could even correspond to the number of people who attended the super screen produced movies in the past year after all.
Secondly, it is assumed that the reason fewer people attend the movies is definitely not as a result of the quality of Super screen's movies. However, no eveidence is provided to support this assumptions. Had it been that there exists a standard movie rating index by which her movies have been highly rated in terms of quality, this assumption will be sound and plausible and the conclusion ultimately justified. On the other hand, low quality movies will appeal less to elite audience, hence, an improvement in the quality of the movies could be what is needed and not an increase in the share of budget for adverisement.
In addition, the author cites a report from the past year and, consequently predicts decisions that should be made for the next year. This is a very weak basis for making such audacious conclusion. What about reports for some earleir months or days of the present year? What if there are other factors such has the presence of severe wheather coditions which discourages people from attending the movies even though they are aware. If this is true, then a larger number of people should be expected in the months ahead in the present year and much more in the year ahead.
In conclusion, if it can be proven that the survey report is truely plausible, that the quality of the movies is not low and that what applies to the previous year will always apply to the year ahead, then the recommendation of the author is reasonable. On the other hand, if the fallacies mentioned above hold true, then the conclusion from is erroneous and will only mislead Super screen.
Comments
e-rater score report
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: 19 15
No. of Words: 431 350
No. of Characters: 2044 1500
No. of Different Words: 199 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.556 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.742 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.475 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 145 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 90 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 65 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 41 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.684 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.398 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.737 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.298 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.527 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.053 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 221, Rule ID: SOME_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'some'.
Suggestion: some
...ng the premises upon which it is built, some of the premises occur because of some fallacio...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 456, Rule ID: FEWER_LESS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'fewer'? The noun reviews is countable.
Suggestion: fewer
...e overshot, it will mean that there are less reviews than were reported. In fact, th...
^^^^
Line 5, column 187, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'these'?
Suggestion: these
...er, no eveidence is provided to support this assumptions. Had it been that there exi...
^^^^
Line 9, column 79, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...t the survey report is truely plausible, that the quality of the movies is not lo...
^^
Line 9, column 226, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... the year ahead, then the recommendation of the author is reasonable. On the othe...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
consequently, first, firstly, hence, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, then, after all, for example, in addition, in conclusion, in fact, as a result, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 29.0 19.6327345309 148% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.9520958084 108% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 13.6137724551 95% => OK
Pronoun: 25.0 28.8173652695 87% => OK
Preposition: 51.0 55.5748502994 92% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 16.3942115768 67% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2101.0 2260.96107784 93% => OK
No of words: 431.0 441.139720559 98% => OK
Chars per words: 4.8747099768 5.12650576532 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.55637350225 4.56307096286 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.56182535819 2.78398813304 92% => OK
Unique words: 204.0 204.123752495 100% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.473317865429 0.468620217663 101% => OK
syllable_count: 637.2 705.55239521 90% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.76447105788 68% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 51.7884039256 57.8364921388 90% => OK
Chars per sentence: 110.578947368 119.503703932 93% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.6842105263 23.324526521 97% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.15789473684 5.70786347227 160% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 5.25449101796 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.20758483034 122% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.88822355289 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.67664670659 107% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.240939976826 0.218282227539 110% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0823662658356 0.0743258471296 111% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.19099218564 0.0701772020484 272% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.153131205998 0.128457276422 119% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.146864188969 0.0628817314937 234% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.8 14.3799401198 89% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 57.61 48.3550499002 119% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.197005988 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.26 12.5979740519 89% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.43 8.32208582834 101% => OK
difficult_words: 101.0 98.500998004 103% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 12.3882235529 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => 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.