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 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 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 advertising director recommends that Super Screen spend more of its budget on advertising next year. The director argues that the company released good movies this past year, but poor public awareness of the quality of its films depressed attendance. However, questionable evidence and unwarranted inferences make the director’s case unpersuasive. Various alternate causes for low attendance escape the director’s attention, and the director gives little reason to believe that more people should have attended Super Screen movies during the past year.
According to the memo, annual attendance at Super Screen movies hit an all-time low this past year. The director attributes this decline to a lack of advertising, contending that a dip in film quality, the only other explanation the director considers, was not the cause. But the director’s analysis is inadequate. Other plausible causes remain unexamined. For example, how many movies did the company release and in how many theaters? Releasing fewer movies or showing the same number of films in fewer theaters could explain having fewer attendees than in previous years. Also, what was the total number of moviegoers for the year? If movie attendance in general plummeted (due, for instance, to a recession), then attendance at the company’s movies could have sunk simply because the total number of moviegoers did.
The memo also states that, in the past year, the percentage of positive reviews for specific Super Screen movies rose. The director infers that the public did not know about these reviews, given that the number of attendees fell. This is a specious inference. Assume, as the director seemingly does, that the more positive reviews a movie receives, the more people will go to see it, provided the reviews are advertised sufficiently. Presumably, the percentage the memo cites is, for a given year, equal to the total number of favorable reviews for individual Super Screen movies divided by the total number of positive movie reviews across all films. What were these totals for the past year compared to earlier years? Suppose, for instance, that total positive movie reviews dropped from 1,000 to 500, while the corresponding Super Screen sum fell from 100 to 60. The percentage of positive reviews would have risen from 10% to 12%. Meanwhile, the 40% drop in favorable critiques could have reduced attendance, even if all 60 positive write-ups were well-known to prospective moviegoers.
On the other hand, imagine that both total and percentage positive reviews for specific Super Screen movies increased this past year. Could annual attendance have dropped to its lowest for reasons other than insufficient advertising? Yes, one of the alternate causes already named, such as a sharp decline in total moviegoers, could explain the drop. Another explanation could be that the reviews were well-advertised, but potential viewers did not find them compelling. What did the reviews say? Who were the reviewers? If many of the write-ups offered only generic plaudits, like “fun movie,” or weakly positive ratings, such as “3 out of 5 stars,” these middling reviews probably would not have been strong attendance drivers. Even if the reviews were often excellent, critiques from top movie critics may have been absent or even unfavorable, potentially depressing attendance.
Attracting and promoting enticing write-ups is important for a film company’s success. Whether Super Screen garnered more this past year than in prior years is unclear. Uncertainty likewise surrounds how well the company promoted whatever good reviews its films did receive. Indeed, contrary to what the director argues, too little advertising may not have caused record-low attendance at the company’s films this past year. Consequently, the director’s recommendation that the company should boost next year’s advertising budget remains in doubt.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 598, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma
Suggestion: , &apos
...y generic plaudits, like 'fun movie,' or weakly positive ratings, such as &a...
^^^^^^
Line 7, column 664, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma
Suggestion: , &apos
... ratings, such as '3 out of 5 stars,' these middling reviews probably would ...
^^^^^^
Line 9, column 93, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “Whether” 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.
...tant for a film company's success. Whether Super Screen garnered more this past ye...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, consequently, however, if, likewise, may, so, then, well, while, for example, for instance, in general, such as, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 19.5258426966 82% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.4196629213 105% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 14.8657303371 74% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 11.3162921348 115% => OK
Pronoun: 28.0 33.0505617978 85% => OK
Preposition: 60.0 58.6224719101 102% => OK
Nominalization: 18.0 12.9106741573 139% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3361.0 2235.4752809 150% => OK
No of words: 609.0 442.535393258 138% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.51888341544 5.05705443957 109% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.96768813016 4.55969084622 109% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.90580551018 2.79657885939 104% => OK
Unique words: 284.0 215.323595506 132% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.466338259442 0.4932671777 95% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 1026.0 704.065955056 146% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 6.24550561798 64% => OK
Article: 12.0 4.99550561798 240% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 7.0 3.10617977528 225% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 5.0 1.77640449438 281% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 5.0 4.38483146067 114% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 34.0 20.2370786517 168% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 23.0359550562 74% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 53.4049619923 60.3974514979 88% => OK
Chars per sentence: 98.8529411765 118.986275619 83% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.9117647059 23.4991977007 76% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.14705882353 5.21951772744 79% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 7.80617977528 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 20.0 10.2758426966 195% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 5.13820224719 156% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.83258426966 124% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.293564175914 0.243740707755 120% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0831456207158 0.0831039109588 100% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0841483770387 0.0758088955206 111% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.191786780948 0.150359130593 128% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0615853491924 0.0667264976115 92% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.5 14.1392134831 95% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 45.76 48.8420337079 94% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.1743820225 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.44 12.1639044944 119% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.32 8.38706741573 99% => OK
difficult_words: 148.0 100.480337079 147% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 11.8971910112 101% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 11.2143820225 78% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => 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.