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.
In the argument written by the director of the Super Screen Movie Production Company, it is deduced that due to increased positive reviews and decreased attendance to Super Screen produced movies, the general public is not aware of the presence of these good quality movies. The author propounds that this can be resolved by Super Screen putting forth more money from their budget into reaching the general public through advertising. Although an increase in advertising could increase the amount of visitors to such movies, the argument is flawed as it rests on vague terms, assumptions and a lack of evidence. Many unanswered questions need to be addressed in order for the author's conclusion to be valid and reliable.
To start, the argument rests on a report that was completed by the marketing department. Per the report, less people have attended super-screen produced movies even though positive reviews have been increasing. This report cannot be used as valid proof in this argument as it uses vague terms and does not discuss how the conclusion was found. The author would need to address how the report was completed; as well as how many movie screenings were included in the report? How long was the behavior tracked to come to the presented conclusion? Were the people tracked in one city or nation wide? How many movies were tracked; were there less people due to the genre of movie observed? As is apparent by the vast amounts of questions, to use this report as the basis of the author's argument is not plausible do to its extreme vagueness. If the author addressed these points in the argument, the conclusion would be more reliable than it currently is.
In addition to using vague terms when citing the report, the author assumes that the contents of the positive reviews are not reaching the public. The author continues to hypothesize that this is the reason of decreased viewers in the past year. The author uses these questionable assumptions to continue to contend that therefore the quality of the movies is not an issue. There are many concerns with the way the author presented these points, as they are assumption backed up by assumption with no evidence. For example, how does the author know that the contents of the reviews are not reaching the public? Maybe they are reaching the public and people are still choosing to go see other production's movies due to location, price, and quality? Additionally, what if the positive reviews have increased because there is a new money gift for reviewers? In order for the argument to be reliable, the author should address these questions; the answering of such questions can lead the author to a stronger argument.
Finally, the author concludes that due to all the presented information, the budget of Super-Screen needs to change and a higher portion should go to advertising to the general public. This conclusion is built on too many assumptions and unanswered questions to be valid. The author should provide readers with the numbers of the current budget to even see if a change in allocation is plausible. What if the budget is already currently tight and in order to allocate more money to advertising, the production company would have to take away money from quality control? This could in fact continue to decrease the number of viewers from watching Super-Screen movies. If the author defines the terms of the budget and can show that it is plausible to do so, this will strengthen the argument.
In conclusion, although the author is attempting to find a solution to the decrease in viewers attending Super-Screen movies, the argument and points used to do so are flawed; they use vague terms, assumptions and a profound lack of evidence. It the author addresses the many questions discussed above, including those about the report, the reviewers reaching the public and if adding more budget to advertising will decrease the quality of movies, then the author will have a stronger argument.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-12-15 | kiacook@gmail.com | 55 | view |
| 2019-11-25 | amberk | 59 | view |
| 2019-11-08 | Hibajbarah | 55 | view |
| 2019-11-08 | mehran_tgn | 37 | view |
| 2019-08-11 | sikrewalrohit96@gmail.com | 43 | view |
- The following is a recommendation from the city manager of Bridge Bay.“Last year, the number of visits to our local beach in Bridge Bay was 50 percent lowerthan the year before. Early last year we ended our contract with Arko Trash Collection, acompany 55
- The best ideas arise from a passionate interest in commonplace things.Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement above and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should c 66
- The following appeared in an article written by Dr. Karp, an anthropologist. “Twenty years ago, Dr. Field, a noted anthropologist, visited the island of Tertia and concluded from his observations that children in Tertia were reared by an entire village 69
- The following letter is from a group of Linford College alumni to the chair of the artdepartment at the college.“In a recent survey of college graduates, 90 percent agreed that participating in aninternship increased their chances of finding a job after 55
- following appeared in an editorial in a business magazine."Although the sales of Whirlwind video games have declined over the past two years, a recent survey of video-game players suggests that this sales trend is about to be reversed. The survey ask 61
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 29 15
No. of Words: 668 350
No. of Characters: 3252 1500
No. of Different Words: 244 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 5.084 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.868 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.589 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 249 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 175 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 132 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 72 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 23.034 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.257 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.483 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.315 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.469 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.07 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 202, Rule ID: GENERAL_XX[1]
Message: Use simply 'public'.
Suggestion: public
...ce to Super Screen produced movies, the general public is not aware of the presence of these g...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 400, Rule ID: GENERAL_XX[1]
Message: Use simply 'public'.
Suggestion: public
...ney from their budget into reaching the general public through advertising. Although an increa...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 677, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...s need to be addressed in order for the authors conclusion to be valid and reliable. ...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 106, Rule ID: FEWER_LESS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'fewer'? The noun people is countable.
Suggestion: fewer
...e marketing department. Per the report, less people have attended super-screen produ...
^^^^
Line 3, column 584, Rule ID: NATION_WIDE[1]
Message: Did you mean 'nationwide'?
Suggestion: nationwide
... Were the people tracked in one city or nation wide? How many movies were tracked; were the...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 638, Rule ID: FEWER_LESS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'fewer'? The noun people is countable.
Suggestion: fewer
...ow many movies were tracked; were there less people due to the genre of movie observ...
^^^^
Line 3, column 774, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
... to use this report as the basis of the authors argument is not plausible do to its ext...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 170, Rule ID: GENERAL_XX[1]
Message: Use simply 'public'.
Suggestion: public
...portion should go to advertising to the general public. This conclusion is built on too many a...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, if, may, so, still, then, therefore, well, for example, in addition, in conclusion, in fact, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 37.0 19.6327345309 188% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 17.0 12.9520958084 131% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 11.1786427146 125% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 13.6137724551 73% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 34.0 28.8173652695 118% => OK
Preposition: 88.0 55.5748502994 158% => OK
Nominalization: 27.0 16.3942115768 165% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3322.0 2260.96107784 147% => OK
No of words: 668.0 441.139720559 151% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.97305389222 5.12650576532 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 5.08386624201 4.56307096286 111% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.67091502422 2.78398813304 96% => OK
Unique words: 254.0 204.123752495 124% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.380239520958 0.468620217663 81% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 1023.3 705.55239521 145% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Article: 17.0 8.76447105788 194% => OK
Subordination: 7.0 2.70958083832 258% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 29.0 19.7664670659 147% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 22.8473053892 101% => OK
Sentence length SD: 51.3023028551 57.8364921388 89% => OK
Chars per sentence: 114.551724138 119.503703932 96% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.0344827586 23.324526521 99% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.86206896552 5.70786347227 68% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 8.0 5.25449101796 152% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.20758483034 122% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 6.88822355289 145% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 9.0 4.67664670659 192% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.196224271215 0.218282227539 90% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0586604012568 0.0743258471296 79% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0682843729775 0.0701772020484 97% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.124309990558 0.128457276422 97% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0583584858544 0.0628817314937 93% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.5 14.3799401198 94% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 56.59 48.3550499002 117% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.197005988 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.84 12.5979740519 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.85 8.32208582834 94% => OK
difficult_words: 130.0 98.500998004 132% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 18.0 12.3882235529 145% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.1389221557 101% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 30 minutes.
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.