in the preceding argument, the author states that they gave to allocate more money in order to attract more people to the Super Screen-produced movies, the conclusion of the argument is based on the following premises. Firstly, he states a report indicates that fewer people attended it. Secondly, he claims there are positive opinion toward the movies but could not reach wide segment. Thirdly, he states that their opinion is good and no problem with the movies quality but there is problem in the public awareness. Therefore, in the first glance it may seem plausible. However, careful scrutiny sheds light on plethora of questions that could undermine the value of the recommendations.
To begin with, the author readily states that a report that fewer people attended the Super Screen movies. In deed, multifarious factors that remains elusive and intractable, such as what is the sample size? Is it representative enough to draw a broad conclusion? What is the demographic data they used in the study for instance their age, gender, what they favor and why they attended in lower percent? All these factors play major role to extrapolate the results, because perhaps some of them do not like the type of movies or there is thing annoying them. Thus, the author fails to provide complete information about the report status and in order to boost his case he has to provide clear data.
Furthermore, the largest leap in the argument what the author said about the positive review. In fact, what was the nature of this view? How he conclude the people opinion? Perhaps the people point of view can interpret it in different methods specially their opinion indicates the subjective view.
Moreover, even there is a relation between the viewer's contents and not reaching these views to prospective viewers. This does not necessarily indicates conspicuous relation between the two events. In other words, how he concluded this causation? Hoe the strong relation is? Perhaps the contents are not good enough or perhaps there is bad services preclude reaching the viewers opinions to more people. Accordingly, building a decision depends on weak causation is not reliable and he has to think and search about real causes and solutions.
Last but not least, the author readily assumes that allocate more money to make more advertisements will attract more people in the future. But how the author assumes point will encourage more people to attend. It might be the main cause is not the quality of movies, perhaps the value of the services or the employees way of communication that mitigate the people to attend. Thus, the argument is without basis and has to provide plausible methods to flourish the attendance rate.
All in all, the argument fails to provide on of the key factor. Namely, all the previous recommendations are equivocal. Consequently, the argument is unsubstantiated and opened to debate.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 1, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: In
in the preceding argument, the author stat...
^^
Line 7, column 144, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[3]
Message: The verb 'does' requires base form of the verb: 'indicate'
Suggestion: indicate
...tive viewers. This does not necessarily indicates conspicuous relation between the two ev...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 328, Rule ID: THERE_S_MANY[4]
Message: Did you mean 'there are bad services'?
Suggestion: there are bad services
...contents are not good enough or perhaps there is bad services preclude reaching the viewers opinions ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
accordingly, but, consequently, first, firstly, furthermore, however, if, may, moreover, second, secondly, so, therefore, third, thirdly, thus, as to, for instance, in fact, such as, in other words, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 19.5258426966 97% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 12.4196629213 56% => OK
Conjunction : 17.0 14.8657303371 114% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 11.3162921348 80% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 36.0 33.0505617978 109% => OK
Preposition: 58.0 58.6224719101 99% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 12.9106741573 124% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2444.0 2235.4752809 109% => OK
No of words: 479.0 442.535393258 108% => OK
Chars per words: 5.10229645094 5.05705443957 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.67825486995 4.55969084622 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.72139826493 2.79657885939 97% => OK
Unique words: 235.0 215.323595506 109% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.490605427975 0.4932671777 99% => OK
syllable_count: 759.6 704.065955056 108% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 6.24550561798 80% => OK
Article: 9.0 4.99550561798 180% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 3.10617977528 32% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.77640449438 56% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.38483146067 137% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 29.0 20.2370786517 143% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 23.0359550562 69% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 44.1576195312 60.3974514979 73% => OK
Chars per sentence: 84.275862069 118.986275619 71% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.5172413793 23.4991977007 70% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.31034482759 5.21951772744 140% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 4.97078651685 121% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 7.80617977528 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 10.2758426966 107% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 5.13820224719 156% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 10.0 4.83258426966 207% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.114616643965 0.243740707755 47% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0282378068643 0.0831039109588 34% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0477098181546 0.0758088955206 63% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0536280196074 0.150359130593 36% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0507338056514 0.0667264976115 76% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.9 14.1392134831 77% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 55.24 48.8420337079 113% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.92365168539 39% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 12.1743820225 78% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.0 12.1639044944 99% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.12 8.38706741573 97% => OK
difficult_words: 112.0 100.480337079 111% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 11.8971910112 67% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 11.2143820225 75% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.7820224719 68% => The average readability is low. Need to imporve the language.
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.