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 advertising director is convinced that Super Screen should spend additional money on advertising to reach more potential clients, based on the the number of viewers last year and the growth in positive reviews. Although the argument may seem credible and logical at first sight, a closer analysis reveals that the author's claims are replete with assumptions and holes that need to be clarified. Unless further evidence is substantiated and evaluated, it will be difficult to conclude that allocating more budget on commercials will be an effective solution.
Firstly, the advertising director uses the increase in the percentage of postive reviews by the movie reviewers as an indicator of the Super Screen's high quailty movies. However, is this growth truly reflective of the quality of the movies? We simply do not know. The movie reviewers may rate horror movies, which the general public to do not enjoy, exceptionally high. In fact, Marvel movies, which are often blockbusters, do not always have the best movie reviews. In addition, we need to know the exact number of positive reviews. For example, if favorable comments increased by 1%, while the total number of reviews, including negative feedback, decreased by 10%, then the actual number of postive reviews actually declined, which can indicate deteriorating movie quality. As such, to develop a more cogent argument, the author must provide specific details about the positive reviews.
Secondly, the author maintains that the public has a lack of awareness of the movies because less people attended Super-Screen produced movies. To make this connection, the author must demonstrate precisely how many fewer people watched the movies. The decrease can be simply one or two people. In this case, it would be an extension to say that the public is not aware of the movies, so Super Screen should spend more on commercials.
Finally, to make the argument more persuasive, we need to know if there were any other reasons why the number of viewers declined. For instance, if the economy declined and less people had money to spend on entertainment, then allocating a greater amount on advertising would not be effective. Even though people know that there are great movies at Super Screen, people would not visit because they would rather spend their money on food than movies. In addition, despite the favorable ratings, what if the movies casted a defamed actor. Although the movie itself may be of good quality, the public may simply boycott any media involving the actor. The reason why the movie viewership declined will help the director make a more informed decision.
In conclusion, assigning a larger budget on advertisements may be a prudent decision. Nonetheless, as the argument stands, it is unable to withstand rebuttal. Until the author is able to answer questions, such as why there were less viewers, the claims made by the director will not be credible enough.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 144, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: the
... reach more potential clients, based on the the number of viewers last year and the gro...
^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 144, Rule ID: DT_DT[1]
Message: Maybe you need to remove one determiner so that only 'the' or 'the' is left.
Suggestion: the; the
... reach more potential clients, based on the the number of viewers last year and the gro...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 319, Rule ID: GENERAL_XX[1]
Message: Use simply 'public'.
Suggestion: public
...ewers may rate horror movies, which the general public to do not enjoy, exceptionally high. In...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 94, Rule ID: FEWER_LESS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'fewer'? The noun people is countable.
Suggestion: fewer
...lack of awareness of the movies because less people attended Super-Screen produced m...
^^^^
Line 7, column 174, Rule ID: FEWER_LESS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'fewer'? The noun people is countable.
Suggestion: fewer
...r instance, if the economy declined and less people had money to spend on entertainm...
^^^^
Line 9, column 229, Rule ID: FEWER_LESS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'fewer'? The noun viewers is countable.
Suggestion: fewer
...nswer questions, such as why there were less viewers, the claims made by the directo...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, but, finally, first, firstly, however, if, may, nonetheless, second, secondly, so, then, while, for example, for instance, in addition, in conclusion, in fact, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.5258426966 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 22.0 12.4196629213 177% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 14.8657303371 40% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 10.0 11.3162921348 88% => OK
Pronoun: 19.0 33.0505617978 57% => OK
Preposition: 51.0 58.6224719101 87% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 12.9106741573 85% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2481.0 2235.4752809 111% => OK
No of words: 479.0 442.535393258 108% => OK
Chars per words: 5.17954070981 5.05705443957 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.67825486995 4.55969084622 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.71370481907 2.79657885939 97% => OK
Unique words: 239.0 215.323595506 111% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.498956158664 0.4932671777 101% => OK
syllable_count: 767.7 704.065955056 109% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 6.24550561798 96% => OK
Article: 11.0 4.99550561798 220% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 10.0 3.10617977528 322% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 10.0 4.38483146067 228% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 20.2370786517 119% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 23.0359550562 82% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 51.4051851038 60.3974514979 85% => OK
Chars per sentence: 103.375 118.986275619 87% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.9583333333 23.4991977007 85% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.375 5.21951772744 141% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 7.80617977528 77% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 10.2758426966 127% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 5.13820224719 117% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.83258426966 103% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.182334440285 0.243740707755 75% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0531425348037 0.0831039109588 64% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0591263195996 0.0758088955206 78% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.103093704799 0.150359130593 69% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0482412830584 0.0667264976115 72% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.9 14.1392134831 91% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 48.8420337079 107% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.92365168539 39% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.1743820225 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.76 12.1639044944 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.83 8.38706741573 105% => OK
difficult_words: 129.0 100.480337079 128% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 11.8971910112 122% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.2143820225 86% => 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.