"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 author recommends that a greater share of budget of Super Screen Production Company must be allocated to the advertising. In order to support the argument the author shares results from a study conducted by its marketing department that shows that, even though the attendence for the movies has decreased, the percentage of positive reviews has increased. Therefore making an assumption that the awareness about good quality of movies is not able to reach the public. However, in concluding the author has taken assumptions which are not supported and left many questions unanswered.
To begin with, the authenticity of the study is questionable. Considering the fact that the marketing department is conducting the study and coming up with a conclusion that its budget must be increased seems questionable. The first question that must be asked is whether the study was unbiased?
Furthermore, it is not made clear by the study that what could be the reasons for reduced attendence over the past few years. Could it be that the public 's interest in the movies has changed? It is possible that due to poor infrastructure of the theatres, people do not prefer to watch movies. These questions are unanswered and if the author is able to provide answers that link lack of attendence to lack of awareness then it would support the argument.
The author argues that since an increasing percentage of people have given positive reviews, therefore there is no question on the quality of movies. However, this assumption is questionable in itself. The author agrees that the number of people watching movies has decreased and it can be assumed that from amongst that decreasing number some percentage have given a positive review. It is not mentioned what actual number of people have given a positive review. For example, the increase can be two percent from last years one percent of positive reviews, which does not conclude that the number of positive reviews has increased overall.
Lastly, there is no evidence that shows that, the current level of awareness amongst people about the Super Screen movies is low. And therefore arriving at any conclusion that recommends increasing the advertisement budget for creating awareness based on this assumption is unwarranted.
In sum, while the author has presented an interesting conclusion, the evidence presented does not provide enough support to establish the validity of the conclusion. Several questions regarding authenticity of the study, reason for low attendence of public, relevance of increase in positive reviews and present status of awareness about Super Screen movies remain unanswered. Therefore, the assumptions made and evidence presented fail to support the recommendation of increasing budgetary allocation of advertising to increase the public awareness about the Super screen movies.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 361, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Therefore,
...tage of positive reviews has increased. Therefore making an assumption that the awareness...
^^^^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['first', 'furthermore', 'however', 'if', 'lastly', 'regarding', 'so', 'then', 'therefore', 'while', 'for example', 'to begin with']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.254582484725 0.25644967241 99% => OK
Verbs: 0.195519348269 0.15541462614 126% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0855397148676 0.0836205057962 102% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0346232179226 0.0520304965353 67% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0183299389002 0.0272364105082 67% => OK
Prepositions: 0.140529531568 0.125424944231 112% => OK
Participles: 0.0692464358452 0.0416121511921 166% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.88297009201 2.79052419416 103% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0224032586558 0.026700313972 84% => OK
Particles: 0.0020366598778 0.001811407834 112% => OK
Determiners: 0.118126272912 0.113004496875 105% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0142566191446 0.0255425247493 56% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0142566191446 0.0127820249294 112% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2864.0 2731.13054187 105% => OK
No of words: 453.0 446.07635468 102% => OK
Chars per words: 6.32229580574 6.12365571057 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.61343653406 4.57801047555 101% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.417218543046 0.378187486979 110% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.317880794702 0.287650121315 111% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.240618101545 0.208842608468 115% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.174392935982 0.135150697306 129% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.88297009201 2.79052419416 103% => OK
Unique words: 195.0 207.018472906 94% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.430463576159 0.469332199767 92% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
Word variations: 47.3680842982 52.1807786196 91% => OK
How many sentences: 21.0 20.039408867 105% => OK
Sentence length: 21.5714285714 23.2022227129 93% => OK
Sentence length SD: 50.5195231789 57.7814097925 87% => OK
Chars per sentence: 136.380952381 141.986410481 96% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.5714285714 23.2022227129 93% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.571428571429 0.724660767414 79% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.14285714286 117% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 3.58251231527 28% => OK
Readability: 53.3595080416 51.9672348444 103% => OK
Elegance: 1.86885245902 1.8405768891 102% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.413505448884 0.441005458295 94% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.150099269424 0.135418324435 111% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.103921063064 0.0829849096947 125% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.639217882691 0.58762219726 109% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.14469310938 0.147661913831 98% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.191511723464 0.193483328276 99% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0779478768469 0.0970749176394 80% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.408345342152 0.42659136922 96% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0712414122515 0.0774707102158 92% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.286039277531 0.312017818177 92% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0656306568343 0.0698173142475 94% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 8.33743842365 144% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.87684729064 131% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.82512315271 0% => More neutral sentences wanted.
Positive topic words: 12.0 6.46551724138 186% => OK
Negative topic words: 6.0 5.36822660099 112% => OK
Neutral topic words: 0.0 2.82389162562 0% => More neutral topic words wanted.
Total topic words: 18.0 14.657635468 123% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 Out of 6 -- The score is based on the average performance of 20,000 argument essays. This e-grader is not smart enough to check on arguments.
---------------------
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.