"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."
In the memo, advertising director concludes that the Super Screen Movie Production Company must invest their greater share of budget in advertising in order to have more movie viewers. The author's conclusion is potentially valid, but, before the conclusion can be adequately assessed, the author must address following three questions.
First of all, the largest leap in the argument is the assumption that the people would not go to see Super Screen-produced movies in near future as in the past. The author must answer to the question that, would the preferences of movie goers remain same all the time in future ? In addition, though fewer people attended the Super Screen-produced movies, is there any certainty that the trend would remain same? Possibly the new generations might really love the super screen movies and the number of movie viewers of the company may increase. Hence, the author must answer this question before making his recommendation.
A second major question stems from "percentage of positive reviews" that has increased during past year. What was the actual increment in the positive reviews? Is the increment in positive reviews really significant? It is possible that only few people among moviegoers responded and all of them provided positive response. Conceivably, the responses from the moviegoers might not be true, they might have just pretend to give positive feedback. In addition, there is not mentioned about the authenticity of feedback form that the Company provided to collect response of Super Screen- produced movies. If either of the questions are not answered, the conclusion drawn by author is significantly weakened.
Last but not least, the argument lacks a depth of details on the assumption that public are not aware about the Super Screen-produced movies. What if people are already known about the movies and actually have neglected the movies? What if the Super- Screen quality did not meet the expectations of moviegoers? What if the sound quality was not good there was super screen ? It is also possible that the Super-Screen-produced movies lack interesting stories and are full of nonsense animations. Maybe people didn't like the movies because of the lack of action scenes and their favorite movie actors. If the above scenario proves to be true, the argument does not hold water.
To sum up, the argument seems to be plausible at first glance, but, upon closer scrutiny, it falls apart. If author hopes to make the argument more credible, he/she must address the abovementioned questions accurately.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-07-25 | rubelmonir | 16 | view |
| 2023-07-25 | rubelmonir | 60 | view |
| 2023-07-23 | Mizanur_Rahman | 50 | view |
| 2023-02-14 | tedyang777 | 60 | view |
| 2022-11-13 | barath002 | 58 | view |
- Shakespeare s literary works 81
- The data from a survey of high school math and science teachers show that in the district of Sanlee many of these teachers reported assigning daily homework whereas in the district of Marlee most science and math teachers reported assigning homework no mo 73
- We recommend that Grove College preserve its century old tradition of all female education rather than admit men into its programs It is true that a majority of faculty members voted in favor of coeducation arguing that it would encourage more students to 57
- Air purifier 76
- Many lives might be saved if inoculations against cow flu were routinely administered to all people in areas where the disease is detected However since there is a small possibility that a person will die as a result of the inoculations we cannot permit i 52
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 3 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 2 2
No. of Sentences: 23 15
No. of Words: 413 350
No. of Characters: 2098 1500
No. of Different Words: 207 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.508 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.08 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.781 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 152 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 102 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 82 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 44 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 17.957 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 5.536 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.739 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.3 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.514 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.124 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 190, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...n order to have more movie viewers. The authors conclusion is potentially valid, but, b...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 312, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...ot meet the expectations of moviegoers? What if the sound quality was not good there...
^^^^
Line 7, column 509, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: didn't
...ll of nonsense animations. Maybe people didnt like the movies because of the lack of ...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, first, hence, if, may, really, second, so, then, in addition, first of all, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 19.6327345309 97% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.9520958084 100% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 11.1786427146 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 9.0 13.6137724551 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 20.0 28.8173652695 69% => OK
Preposition: 54.0 55.5748502994 97% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 16.3942115768 98% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2173.0 2260.96107784 96% => OK
No of words: 411.0 441.139720559 93% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.28710462287 5.12650576532 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.50256981431 4.56307096286 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.91293658325 2.78398813304 105% => OK
Unique words: 211.0 204.123752495 103% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.513381995134 0.468620217663 110% => OK
syllable_count: 663.3 705.55239521 94% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 19.7664670659 116% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 22.8473053892 74% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 33.6317767642 57.8364921388 58% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 94.4782608696 119.503703932 79% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.8695652174 23.324526521 77% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.60869565217 5.70786347227 81% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 15.0 8.20758483034 183% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.88822355289 73% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.67664670659 64% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.388575931296 0.218282227539 178% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.109010866403 0.0743258471296 147% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0848387821063 0.0701772020484 121% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.184255999346 0.128457276422 143% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.112348622278 0.0628817314937 179% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.4 14.3799401198 86% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 54.22 48.3550499002 112% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 12.197005988 81% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.11 12.5979740519 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.9 8.32208582834 95% => OK
difficult_words: 89.0 98.500998004 90% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 12.3882235529 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 11.1389221557 79% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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.