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 given statement asserts that Super Screen Movie Production Company should increase the percentage of their budget for more advertising in order to
increase public awareness and succeed in marketing strategies. Although the author gives several evidence and assumptions to support the argument, the opinion seems rather frail due to the lack of correlation between the evidence and the assumption. In order to evaluate the argument more properly, the following questions should be answered.
Firstly, does the recent report mentioned in the passage pertain enough representativeness in order to support the assumption? Even though the author suggests that the report is reliable enough in terms of representing the average usage of Super Screen-produced movies, the original source of the 'recent report' lack reliability due to the fact that it is not clearly stated. If the report concerns only particular regions of the whole consumer market, then the report may not represent the total pattern of usage. Thus, even though it is stated that fewer people attended Super Screen than in any other year, the author should have made it distinct that the report is reliable enough.
Secondly, are there any other potential reasons for the decrease of usage of Super Screen-produced movies? Even though we acknoledge the assumption that the report holds representiveness, the author should have made it more compelling that the reasons for the decrease of usage are attributed to the policies of the company itself. That is, if the decrease stemmed from the abrupt change in the overall movie market due to public disasters or economic difficulty, then the company shall not make the decrease as a significant failure of the marketing.
Thirdly, even if we admit that the decrease of the usage is due to lack of marketing skills and management of the company, the author has to clarify the specific factors of the lack of usage. For, the author's assumption that lack of awareness led to the low rate of consumption does not have any grounds. If the positive reviews towards the contents are only due to some factors that attracted maniacs of the contents, then it should be more important to enhance the overall quality of the movies or at least widen the spectrum of what the company is producing. Thus, it may not be true that increasing the awareness results to the an increased profit. As a consequence, it may produce even more loss in the net gain of the company due to an increase of the cost for advertising.
In conclusion, even though the author's assumption seem sound and reasonable at first glance, the argument shall be denounced unless the author clarifies the aforementioned questions concerning the reliability of these assumptions.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 152, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... budget for more advertising in order to increase public awareness and succeed in...
^^^
Line 2, column 90, Rule ID: MANY_NN_U[8]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun evidence seems to be uncountable; consider using: 'some evidence'.
Suggestion: some evidence
...g strategies. Although the author gives several evidence and assumptions to support the argument...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 202, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
... factors of the lack of usage. For, the authors assumption that lack of awareness led t...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 629, Rule ID: DT_DT[1]
Message: Maybe you need to remove one determiner so that only 'the' or 'an' is left.
Suggestion: the; an
...hat increasing the awareness results to the an increased profit. As a consequence, it ...
^^^^^^
Line 6, column 33, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...sing. In conclusion, even though the authors assumption seem sound and reasonable at...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, firstly, if, may, second, secondly, so, then, third, thirdly, thus, as to, at least, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 19.5258426966 72% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.4196629213 81% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 14.8657303371 47% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 12.0 11.3162921348 106% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 33.0505617978 73% => OK
Preposition: 55.0 58.6224719101 94% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 12.9106741573 132% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2303.0 2235.4752809 103% => OK
No of words: 449.0 442.535393258 101% => OK
Chars per words: 5.12917594655 5.05705443957 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.60321845022 4.55969084622 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.86008885065 2.79657885939 102% => OK
Unique words: 202.0 215.323595506 94% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.449888641425 0.4932671777 91% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 724.5 704.065955056 103% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 6.24550561798 48% => OK
Article: 9.0 4.99550561798 180% => OK
Subordination: 10.0 3.10617977528 322% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
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: 28.0 23.0359550562 122% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 55.7897840111 60.3974514979 92% => OK
Chars per sentence: 143.9375 118.986275619 121% => OK
Words per sentence: 28.0625 23.4991977007 119% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.875 5.21951772744 132% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 4.97078651685 121% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 7.80617977528 64% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 10.2758426966 88% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 5.13820224719 117% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.83258426966 21% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.214817509957 0.243740707755 88% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0731666556845 0.0831039109588 88% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0748580278278 0.0758088955206 99% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.110236158299 0.150359130593 73% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0860212907095 0.0667264976115 129% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.8 14.1392134831 119% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 43.06 48.8420337079 88% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 12.1743820225 117% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.77 12.1639044944 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.07 8.38706741573 108% => OK
difficult_words: 115.0 100.480337079 114% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 11.8971910112 92% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.2 11.2143820225 118% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.7820224719 110% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.