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 act

The advertising director of the Super Screen Movie Production Company has suggested to increase the share of budget for advertising based on past years's marketing report presented by market department of Super Screen Production.
According to report, number of people watched Super Screen produced movies, during past year was less in comparison with any other year. Although the percentage of positive reviews for specific Super Screen produced movies has increased for same year. Hence the advertising director concluded the problem lies in the lack of awareness regarding good quality of movies rather in quality of movies produced by Super Screen.

The arguments is based on many assumptions, hence the conclusion drawn is not justified. Missing of data in term of number of people watched the Super Screen produced movies in subsequent years, does not provide good picture for comparison.

Generalisation of increase in positive reviews by movies reviewer about specific Super Screen produced movies, for all movies, does not make solid evidence. And on basis of this evidence, concluding that quality of Super Screen produced movies is not bad, in all way shows the flaws in final conclusion.

Rather than assuming the quality of movies is not the factor in lesser number of people watched the Super Screen, it should be considered as positive point in revenue generation.

To sum up, instead of using vague term 'fewer', data of all number of people watched the Super Screen during all the years individually would have added some logic to argument. Again the percentage in increase of positive reviews per movies could have provided proper visualisation of qualities of movies. Based on this data, action can be taken on both improvement of quality of movies and increase in advertisements.

Votes
Average: 4.3 (3 votes)
Essay Categories
Essays by the user:

Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 204, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...report presented by market department of Super Screen Production. According to r...
^^
Line 2, column 161, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...any other year. Although the percentage of positive reviews for specific Super S...
^^
Line 2, column 254, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Hence,
...ced movies has increased for same year. Hence the advertising director concluded the ...
^^^^^
Line 4, column 15, Rule ID: AGREEMENT_SENT_START[4]
Message: You should probably use: 'are'.
Suggestion: are
...duced by Super Screen. The arguments is based on many assumptions, hence the co...
^^
Line 10, column 239, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... increase of positive reviews per movies could have provided proper visualisation...
^^

Transition Words or Phrases used:
hence, if, regarding, so, to sum up

Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments

Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 7.0 19.6327345309 36% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 12.9520958084 31% => OK
Conjunction : 2.0 11.1786427146 18% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 1.0 13.6137724551 7% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 4.0 28.8173652695 14% => OK
Preposition: 56.0 55.5748502994 101% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 16.3942115768 61% => OK

Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1523.0 2260.96107784 67% => OK
No of words: 287.0 441.139720559 65% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.30662020906 5.12650576532 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.11595363751 4.56307096286 90% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.71332165209 2.78398813304 97% => OK
Unique words: 141.0 204.123752495 69% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.491289198606 0.468620217663 105% => OK
syllable_count: 475.2 705.55239521 67% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK

A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 4.96107784431 20% => OK
Article: 2.0 8.76447105788 23% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK

Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 19.7664670659 61% => 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: 23.0 22.8473053892 101% => OK
Sentence length SD: 35.5210227268 57.8364921388 61% => OK
Chars per sentence: 126.916666667 119.503703932 106% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.9166666667 23.324526521 103% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.91666666667 5.70786347227 51% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 5.25449101796 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.20758483034 122% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 6.88822355289 15% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.67664670659 21% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?

Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.512444056335 0.218282227539 235% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.208170803937 0.0743258471296 280% => Sentence topic similarity is high.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.108390336129 0.0701772020484 154% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.282753221914 0.128457276422 220% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.120323368166 0.0628817314937 191% => OK

Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.5 14.3799401198 108% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 39.67 48.3550499002 82% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 12.197005988 110% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.81 12.5979740519 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.68 8.32208582834 104% => OK
difficult_words: 71.0 98.500998004 72% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 12.3882235529 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.1389221557 101% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => OK
What are above readability scores?

---------------------

Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.

Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 2.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 12 15
No. of Words: 287 350
No. of Characters: 1482 1500
No. of Different Words: 135 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.116 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.164 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.645 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 122 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 78 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 58 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 33 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 23.917 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 5.795 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.25 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.457 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.688 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.157 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5