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 memo here describes that the advertising director of a super screen movie production company suggests allocating more money in their budget in reaching the public. This is given as last year the total viewers to their company is the least compared to any other years and yet there are many positive reviews. The argument is
flawed and can be evaluated only on answering the given questions.
Is last year's reduction in the number of viewers only due to a lack of awareness? This might be because of the financial condition that year which means people's businesses didn't go very well and so the reduction in number could have happened or the number of good movies might have increased and so number got distributed among all the movies. If any of the above-given examples if true it seriously weakens the author's assumption.
Did the number of positive reviews increased and by what percent did the positive reviews increased? The percent might have increased as fewer people watched and more of them reviewed positively but the total number might still be less than the previous years or the percent increase might be slightest which is very common among businesses year to year. The above examples can change the author's conclusion.
Is allocating more money the only way to reach the public? The changes in the genre of the movies can help as people might have bored with the current ones and wanted a change or putting efforts to analyze the distribution and production flaws might help.
These examples if true makes the author's conclusion fall apart.
In conclusion, the argument, as it stands now, is flawed due to its reliance on several unwarranted assumptions and can only be evaluated if the author answers the above questions and given evide
| 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 |
- 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 63
- A nation should require all of its students to study the same national curriculum until they enter college 58
- 'The following is a memorandum from the business manager of a television station.“Over the past year, our late-night news program has devoted increased time to national news and less time to weather and local news. During this time period, most of 63
- The best way for a society to prepare its young people for leadership in government, industry, or other fields is by instilling in them a sense of cooperation, not competition. 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: 14 15
No. of Words: 299 350
No. of Characters: 1444 1500
No. of Different Words: 148 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.158 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.829 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.512 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 99 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 75 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 55 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 34 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.357 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 13.151 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.357 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.335 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.671 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.059 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 7 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 328, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...e many positive reviews. The argument is flawed and can be evaluated only on answ...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Flawed
...y positive reviews. The argument is flawed and can be evaluated only on answering ...
^^^^^^
Line 7, column 9, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'years'' or 'year's'?
Suggestion: years'; year's
...ering the given questions. Is last years reduction in the number of viewers only...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 173, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: didn't
...hat year which means peoples businesses didnt go very well and so the reduction in nu...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 413, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...amples if true it seriously weakens the authors assumption. Did the number of posi...
^^^^^^^
Line 11, column 91, Rule ID: DID_PAST[1]
Message: Did you mean 'increase'?
Suggestion: increase
...y what percent did the positive reviews increased? The percent might have increased as fe...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 11, column 390, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...year. The above examples can change the authors conclusion. Is allocating more mon...
^^^^^^^
Line 17, column 34, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...elp. These examples if true makes the authors conclusion fall apart. In conclusi...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, if, so, still, well, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 19.6327345309 66% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.9520958084 93% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 11.1786427146 134% => OK
Relative clauses : 4.0 13.6137724551 29% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 11.0 28.8173652695 38% => OK
Preposition: 31.0 55.5748502994 56% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 10.0 16.3942115768 61% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1484.0 2260.96107784 66% => OK
No of words: 298.0 441.139720559 68% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.97986577181 5.12650576532 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.15483772266 4.56307096286 91% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.54466873064 2.78398813304 91% => OK
Unique words: 151.0 204.123752495 74% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.506711409396 0.468620217663 108% => OK
syllable_count: 456.3 705.55239521 65% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.76447105788 68% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.22255489022 24% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 19.7664670659 66% => 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: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 70.6458791203 57.8364921388 122% => OK
Chars per sentence: 114.153846154 119.503703932 96% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.9230769231 23.324526521 98% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.0 5.70786347227 53% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 7.0 5.15768463074 136% => Less paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 8.0 5.25449101796 152% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.88822355289 58% => 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: 0.192093690032 0.218282227539 88% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0599771857681 0.0743258471296 81% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0602702360058 0.0701772020484 86% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0738196967109 0.128457276422 57% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0797122915747 0.0628817314937 127% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.5 14.3799401198 94% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 57.61 48.3550499002 119% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.197005988 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.9 12.5979740519 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.38 8.32208582834 101% => OK
difficult_words: 69.0 98.500998004 70% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Maximum six paragraphs wanted.
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.