Argument Topic: "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."
The author of the above arguments has asserted that since the number of attendees of super-screen movies has decreased during the last year while critics have released good reviews about specific super-screen, so with increasing the amount of advertising, the production company will attract wider watchers. While this deduction might seems flawless at the first glance, it suffers from serious loopholes which will be discussed here.
One the one hand, if we accept that super-screen movies are of high-quality just because of the good reviews of critics, the word "specific" in the argument would make us dubious. Be that as it may, One can easily figure out that just by alluding that the "specific" number of super-screen movies have been praised, we can not deem all of them of high-quality.
One the other hand, we are said nothing regarding the number of critics who have praised the super-screen movies or even about the percentage of decrease in the viewers of super-screen movies. Maybe just four fifteen number of watchers have been dwindled while two-hundred critics have acclaimed the quality of the movies. Therefore, the exact ratio of the non-viewers to the numbers of critics must be defined for reaching an untenabe conclusion.
Furthermore, the author of the memo have ignored the real objective of critics in this conclusion. we are not told anything about their goals. Maybe, for example, they just have acclaimed the movies just to be received bribery. Hence, concluding in this manner does not seem rational.
It is also noteworthy that there is a question mark hanging over the role of advertising for attracting wider audiences. Is the movie production company positive about the advertising? Maybe some other contributing factors have had an adverse effect on the decreased number of super screen movies. For example, a factor such as watchers tastes or preferences toward super screen movies have led to dwindling number of patrons of this category of movies.
To recapitulate, it is seems advisable to infer that while conclusion of the marketing manager seems fit at the first glance, it has some serious shortcomings which must be reconsidered to arrive at more warranted and sensible deduction.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...pholes which will be discussed here. One the one hand, if we accept that supe...
^^^^^^
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...not deem all of them of high-quality. One the other hand, we are said nothing ...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... for reaching an untenabe conclusion. Furthermore, the author of the memo have...
^^^
Line 7, column 103, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: We
...bjective of critics in this conclusion. we are not told anything about their goals...
^^
Line 9, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...n this manner does not seem rational. It is also noteworthy that there is a qu...
^^
Line 11, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...f patrons of this category of movies. To recapitulate, it is seems advisable t...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, furthermore, hence, if, may, regarding, so, therefore, while, for example, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 19.5258426966 72% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.4196629213 72% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 14.8657303371 20% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 10.0 11.3162921348 88% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 33.0505617978 73% => OK
Preposition: 53.0 58.6224719101 90% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 12.9106741573 46% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1899.0 2235.4752809 85% => OK
No of words: 360.0 442.535393258 81% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.275 5.05705443957 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.35587717469 4.55969084622 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.01789799916 2.79657885939 108% => OK
Unique words: 189.0 215.323595506 88% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.525 0.4932671777 106% => OK
syllable_count: 584.1 704.065955056 83% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 6.24550561798 128% => OK
Article: 6.0 4.99550561798 120% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.10617977528 64% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.38483146067 46% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 20.2370786517 79% => 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: 22.0 23.0359550562 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 68.0831006473 60.3974514979 113% => OK
Chars per sentence: 118.6875 118.986275619 100% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.5 23.4991977007 96% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.25 5.21951772744 120% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 4.97078651685 121% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 7.80617977528 77% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 10.2758426966 88% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 5.13820224719 78% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.83258426966 62% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.177962739824 0.243740707755 73% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0589178912599 0.0831039109588 71% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0567388702494 0.0758088955206 75% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0914708600564 0.150359130593 61% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0612580389094 0.0667264976115 92% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.7 14.1392134831 104% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 48.8420337079 101% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.92365168539 39% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.1743820225 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.64 12.1639044944 112% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.68 8.38706741573 103% => OK
difficult_words: 90.0 100.480337079 90% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 11.8971910112 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.2143820225 96% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.7820224719 119% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 79.17 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.75 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.