"According to a recent report by 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 last year. Clearly, the content of these reviews is not reaching enough of our prospective viewers. Thus, the problem lies not in the quality of our movies but with public's lack of awareness that movies of good quality are available. Super Screen should therefore allocate a greater quantity of its budget next year to reaching the public through advertising."
The argument presented is flawed due to a number of unwarranted assumptions and lack of supporting evidence presented.
First of all, the writer mentions that the percentage of positive reviews about specific movies have increased over the past year. Does that mean that movies have improved in quality? Or it may be that the part of population, super screen movies are now attracting doesn't have the sense of what good movies are? It may also be the case, that the positive reviews are about the better selection of actresses in the movie, or they may have given positive review about a song which they liked, but this doesn't mean a good movie at all. Thus, specifics about the type of reviews received, should be summarized and added to the argument. Moreover, the type of audience which is attending the movies, their understanding about the script should be noted to know exactly how the quality of the movie is.
Secondly, increase in percentage of positve reviews may also be due to the fact that, the persons who disliked the movie left early without leaving a review. There may be only fifty people in the cinema and these people are the only fifty people who liked your movies from the thousand attendees previous year. Thus, percentage of positive reviews was meant to increase. We should have a comparitive data which have details about the viewer that, how long he has been visiting this cinema? What were his previous reviews? Are the new reviews better than the previous one? How many viewers who had negative views last year are not coming this year? After getting the answers to these question a more convincing deduction could be made.
Finally, just because of the fact that lesser people are coming to watch the movie doesn't mean that the news about it is not being spread to the majority. We should have a survey in the town from where we expect to attract viewers. They should be asked whether they know about the movie or not? Why didn't they attend the previous movie? What are their interests? What do they like to watch? Apart from these questions, we must check the economic conditions that may have varied over the past year. It may be that the price of the movie is now increased and not affordable for the population. Through these questions the company could know that whether their movie needs more advertisement, or they need to invest on better scripts or they need to lower the prices of the tickets. They can also check for other available options for watching movies that a user may be preferring. Knowing it will help to strengthen the argument for funding increase.
Thus , we can conclude that this argument needs a lot of questions answered before the company can finally adopt its conclusion as a policy.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 266, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
... super screen movies are now attracting doesnt have the sense of what good movies are?...
^^^^^^
Line 3, column 501, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...about a song which they liked, but this doesnt mean a good movie at all. Thus, specifi...
^^^^^^
Line 5, column 649, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “After” 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.
...ews last year are not coming this year? After getting the answers to these question a...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 15, Rule ID: BECAUSE_OF_THE_FACT_THAT[1]
Message: This phrase is redundant. Use simply 'because'.
Suggestion: because
...duction could be made. Finally, just because of the fact that lesser people are coming to watch the m...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 84, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...er people are coming to watch the movie doesnt mean that the news about it is not bein...
^^^^^^
Line 7, column 300, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: didn't
...r they know about the movie or not? Why didnt they attend the previous movie? What ar...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 731, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...or they need to invest on better scripts or they need to lower the prices of the ...
^^
Line 7, column 866, Rule ID: PROGRESSIVE_VERBS[1]
Message: This verb is normally not used in the progressive form. Try a simple form instead.
...ons for watching movies that a user may be preferring. Knowing it will help to strengthen the...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 5, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma, but not before the comma
Suggestion: ,
...e argument for funding increase. Thus , we can conclude that this argument need...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, if, may, moreover, second, secondly, so, then, thus, apart from, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 27.0 19.6327345309 138% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 22.0 12.9520958084 170% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 21.0 13.6137724551 154% => OK
Pronoun: 48.0 28.8173652695 167% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 56.0 55.5748502994 101% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 16.3942115768 73% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2281.0 2260.96107784 101% => OK
No of words: 477.0 441.139720559 108% => OK
Chars per words: 4.7819706499 5.12650576532 93% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.67336384929 4.56307096286 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.37016732376 2.78398813304 85% => OK
Unique words: 229.0 204.123752495 112% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.480083857442 0.468620217663 102% => OK
syllable_count: 695.7 705.55239521 99% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 4.96107784431 202% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 4.0 8.76447105788 46% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.67365269461 239% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 27.0 19.7664670659 137% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 22.8473053892 74% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 50.3780767525 57.8364921388 87% => OK
Chars per sentence: 84.4814814815 119.503703932 71% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.6666666667 23.324526521 76% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.85185185185 5.70786347227 67% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 9.0 5.25449101796 171% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 14.0 8.20758483034 171% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.88822355289 73% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.67664670659 171% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.285026859216 0.218282227539 131% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0834526494509 0.0743258471296 112% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0720572865091 0.0701772020484 103% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.13202670646 0.128457276422 103% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.121709626677 0.0628817314937 194% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 9.9 14.3799401198 69% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 62.68 48.3550499002 130% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.7 12.197005988 71% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.15 12.5979740519 81% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.62 8.32208582834 92% => OK
difficult_words: 95.0 98.500998004 96% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 12.3882235529 85% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 11.1389221557 79% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.