The best way for a society to prepare its young is to instill a sense of both competition and cooperation.
The advertising director of Super Screen Movie states that a greater share allocation of its budget should be given to advertising. The opponents have come to this conclusion based on the assumption the contents of these reviews are not reaching enough to the prospective viewers. Before evaluating the argument and jump on any hasty conclusion, I would like to ask certain questions which needs to be answered. Therefore, I want to put my perceptive understanding as follows.
Firstly, author asserts that fewer people attended Super Screen movies yet the percentage of positive reviews increased than previous year. What percentage of people reviewed the movie this year as compared to last? There's a possibility that only few people reviewed the movie this year and all reviews were positive and during the last year a greater amount of people reviewed hence, percentage of positive reviews were less. Also, author fails to give an exact number of people saw the movie and exact number of people who reviewed it. If author would have mentioned these stats then it was apetly to determine the position of argument untill then argument looses it's significance.
Additonally, author prompts that public's lack of awareness is the problem which has led fewer people to view the movie. What if people are well aware and did not see the movie as they were more interested in a different genre? It is also possible that the people found the movie ticket expensive and thought that it is not worth to view at that cost. This illustrates that movie's quality was not as good as one may assumed. Hence, the above scenario undermines the author argument and it can be said that the assumptions are unjustified.
Further, author suggest to allocate a greater share for advertising next year to reach through public. What if the people have lost interest and are nonchalant towards cinema? In that case advertising the movie will be a waste in resources, money etc. Hence, the author cannot assume advertising as the boosting factor to increase viewers in super screen movies.
To recapitulate, the author's argument are relied on unwarranted and unjustified assumptions. The author needs more evidence to support his position. If the author is able to answer the above mentioned questions then it is viable to allocate a greater share of budget for advertising until then the argument remains skeptical and contentious. In my opinion, the prompt should remain neutral and open for further arguments
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 217, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: There's
...he movie this year as compared to last? Theres a possibility that only few people revi...
^^^^^^
Line 3, column 539, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “If” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...exact number of people who reviewed it. If author would have mentioned these stats...
^^
Line 3, column 549, Rule ID: IF_WOULD_HAVE_VBN[1]
Message: Did you mean 'had mentioned'?
Suggestion: had mentioned
...er of people who reviewed it. If author would have mentioned these stats then it was apetly to deter...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 17, Rule ID: ADMIT_ENJOY_VB[1]
Message: This verb is used with the gerund form: 'suggest allocating'.
Suggestion: suggest allocating
...ons are unjustified. Further, author suggest to allocate a greater share for advertising next ye...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
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
... screen movies. To recapitulate, the authors argument are relied on unwarranted and ...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, firstly, hence, if, may, so, then, therefore, well, in my opinion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 19.6327345309 97% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 12.9520958084 62% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 11.1786427146 107% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 13.6137724551 95% => OK
Pronoun: 30.0 28.8173652695 104% => OK
Preposition: 46.0 55.5748502994 83% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 16.3942115768 73% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2093.0 2260.96107784 93% => OK
No of words: 410.0 441.139720559 93% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.10487804878 5.12650576532 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.49982852243 4.56307096286 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.69313026507 2.78398813304 97% => OK
Unique words: 206.0 204.123752495 101% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.50243902439 0.468620217663 107% => OK
syllable_count: 658.8 705.55239521 93% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 19.7664670659 111% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 22.8473053892 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 38.8262978529 57.8364921388 67% => OK
Chars per sentence: 95.1363636364 119.503703932 80% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.6363636364 23.324526521 80% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.54545454545 5.70786347227 62% => 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 : 11.0 6.88822355289 160% => 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: 0.0314483506689 0.218282227539 14% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0102880274778 0.0743258471296 14% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0171064786864 0.0701772020484 24% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0200525925959 0.128457276422 16% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0122053538377 0.0628817314937 19% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.9 14.3799401198 83% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 48.3550499002 110% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 12.197005988 84% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.3 12.5979740519 98% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.03 8.32208582834 96% => OK
difficult_words: 91.0 98.500998004 92% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 12.3882235529 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.1389221557 83% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 16.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.