"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.
While the conclusion in the memo from the advertising director to allocate a more money for advertising sounds appealing, it stands on a flimsy base. Several questions need to be analysed to efficiently evaluate the arguement before implementing the decision.
The cardinal question which needs to be evaluated is whether the report from the marketing department has the correct claims. It may be possible that the report this year was based on only a particular geographical location. Thus, even if the number of people attenting reduced in that area, it might have increased in other areas, resulting in an overall increase in the number of people attending super screen produced movies.
It is also necessary to determine the relation between nature of movies and the number of people attending. It is highly plausible that the number of positive reviews increased beacuse the type of movies produced changed. The new type of movies, though highly insightful, may not have been understood by the laity, thus reducing the number of people. In this case, increasing the budget on advertising will fail to yield the desired results.
Another question to be taken into consideration is whether the marketing strategy changed during the past year. If it remained the same, the great reduction in the number of people during past year is not because the public is not aware that good movies are available. There might be some chnage in the movies that caused the reduction, or the public might have started preferring other productions. It is also possible that they might have gotten bored of the movies by super screen.
Finally, it is unknown if the good quality movies are unique to super screen production. here might be other production companies producing similar or even better quality movies at a cheaper cost. Thus, people might prefer watching movies at a cheaper rate. If this is true, super screen should focus on prodcing movies at low cost rather than allocating greater share of budget for marketing.
Hence, a myriad of questions need to be taken into account which can change the nature of the arguement. If the above mentioned questions weaken the arguement, the intended results will be be obatined.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 449, Rule ID: BORED_OF[1]
Message: Did you mean 'bored with'?
Suggestion: bored with
...so possible that they might have gotten bored of the movies by super screen. Finally...
^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 90, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Here
... are unique to super screen production. here might be other production companies pro...
^^^^
Line 9, column 383, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...n allocating greater share of budget for marketing. Hence, a myriad of questio...
^^
Line 11, column 187, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: be
...he arguement, the intended results will be be obatined.
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, hence, if, may, so, thus, while
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 19.6327345309 112% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.9520958084 108% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 11.1786427146 27% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 8.0 13.6137724551 59% => OK
Pronoun: 18.0 28.8173652695 62% => OK
Preposition: 50.0 55.5748502994 90% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 16.3942115768 79% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1868.0 2260.96107784 83% => OK
No of words: 366.0 441.139720559 83% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.10382513661 5.12650576532 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.37391431897 4.56307096286 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.62985203226 2.78398813304 94% => OK
Unique words: 189.0 204.123752495 93% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.516393442623 0.468620217663 110% => OK
syllable_count: 582.3 705.55239521 83% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.471057884232 0% => OK
Article: 5.0 8.76447105788 57% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.70958083832 221% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.22255489022 24% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => OK
Sentence length SD: 30.6136681223 57.8364921388 53% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 98.3157894737 119.503703932 82% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.2631578947 23.324526521 83% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.42105263158 5.70786347227 42% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.20758483034 122% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 6.88822355289 29% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.67664670659 150% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.269997370962 0.218282227539 124% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0812299265939 0.0743258471296 109% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0556083969147 0.0701772020484 79% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.127435216379 0.128457276422 99% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.069115453528 0.0628817314937 110% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.2 14.3799401198 85% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 48.3550499002 108% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.197005988 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.3 12.5979740519 98% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.72 8.32208582834 105% => OK
difficult_words: 96.0 98.500998004 97% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 12.3882235529 93% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.