"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 authors passage does not provide enough evidences to corroborate the fact and in my opinion the argument is completely vague.
Firstly, the marketing team does not provide complete facts. They said fewer people attended the movies produced by Super Screen movie production company, they did not give the statistics from where the gather these number. Suppose the movie created this year was about Hinduism and the attendance statistics was taken from a state where there are more christian community people. There is possibility that they were not interested in the genre of the movie and the movie they showcase last year was more focused on Christianity so the number of people attending the movie might have been more. Marketing team needs to be more precise of their statistics.
There the department goes on to saying that the reviews have increased but did they check the number of individual people who reviewed were same as the number of reviews actually casted! there can be a possibility that a fan of the movie was over enthusiastic and maybe reviewed the movie twice or reviewed the movie on different platforms so his review is getting counted more than once. The statement made my marketing team is too vague.
Further the marketing department states that they would need to spent more on marketing so that people are aware of the movie being produced but there is not statement which can verify the argument stated. It can be possible that the people are aware about the movie but they do not like the content or the story of the movie due to which they would not prefer to go for this movie. Maybe if the next movie has better content people might go watch it, and the marketing teams judgement could be wrong. The survey or the judgment need to be backed up with more previous years experience.
It is also possible that movies being produced each year has same content so the people are not interested in the movie as they already know about the plot of the movie.
There argument seems too biased and looks like the marketing team is not providing all the facts and just presenting the survey for their own benefit so that it looks like the dip in the number of people attending the movie was due to limited budget in the advertisement and marketing. If the author might have elaborated more and provided more details then the argument might have strengthened and we could verify the claims.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-12-24 | Cynic | 43 | view |
| 2019-12-14 | nimesh94 | 42 | view |
| 2019-12-14 | mcmaster | 33 | view |
| 2019-12-10 | pooja.kakde@gmail.com | 59 | view |
| 2019-11-28 | a251ravind | 63 | view |
- Some experts believe that it is better for children to begin learning a foreign language at primary school rather than secondary school. Do the advantages of this outweigh the disadvantages? 56
- A person who knowingly commits a crime has broken the social contract and should not retain any civil rights or the right to benefit from his or her own labor. 50
- As people rely more and more on technology to solve problems, the ability of humans to think for themselves will surely deteriorate. 50
- A nation should require all of its students to study the same national curriculum until they enter college. 50
- Over the past year, our late-night news program has devoted increasingly more time to covering national news and less time to covering weather and local news. During the same time period, most of the complaints we received from viewers were concerned with 50
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: 15 15
No. of Words: 420 350
No. of Characters: 1971 1500
No. of Different Words: 183 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.527 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.693 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.357 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 119 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 84 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 61 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 41 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 28 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 15.761 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.667 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.382 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.628 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.12 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 6 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 9, column 188, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: There
... the number of reviews actually casted! there can be a possibility that a fan of the ...
^^^^^
Line 21, column 354, Rule ID: LESS_MORE_THEN[1]
Message: Did you mean 'than'?
Suggestion: than
...aborated more and provided more details then the argument might have strengthened a...
^^^^
Line 21, column 395, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...hen the argument might have strengthened and we could verify the claims. ...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, first, firstly, if, look, may, so, then, thus, in my opinion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 26.0 19.6327345309 132% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.9520958084 100% => OK
Conjunction : 16.0 11.1786427146 143% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 13.6137724551 95% => OK
Pronoun: 30.0 28.8173652695 104% => OK
Preposition: 39.0 55.5748502994 70% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 16.3942115768 85% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2032.0 2260.96107784 90% => OK
No of words: 420.0 441.139720559 95% => OK
Chars per words: 4.8380952381 5.12650576532 94% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.52701905584 4.56307096286 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.39005403216 2.78398813304 86% => OK
Unique words: 184.0 204.123752495 90% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.438095238095 0.468620217663 93% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 627.3 705.55239521 89% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 4.0 8.76447105788 46% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 0.0 4.22255489022 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 19.7664670659 76% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 28.0 22.8473053892 123% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 87.0865214727 57.8364921388 151% => OK
Chars per sentence: 135.466666667 119.503703932 113% => OK
Words per sentence: 28.0 23.324526521 120% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.4 5.70786347227 95% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.67664670659 43% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.308599229808 0.218282227539 141% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.108971052735 0.0743258471296 147% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0863544722055 0.0701772020484 123% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.162202035708 0.128457276422 126% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0996434229384 0.0628817314937 158% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.4 14.3799401198 107% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 51.52 48.3550499002 107% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.0 12.197005988 107% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.09 12.5979740519 88% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.66 8.32208582834 92% => OK
difficult_words: 70.0 98.500998004 71% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.2 11.1389221557 119% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.