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 argument states that fewer people attended Super Screen-produced movies in spite of increasing positive movie reviews; thus, the company should assign more budget to inform the public about these movies through advertising. However, several points which are made in the argument do not have concrete support and thus, if these points were to be false, the conclusion would be baseless.
First, the author needs to answer the question whether the number of people attending Super Screen-produced movies decreased even though the number of people attending other movies did not decrease. If the total number of people attending movies had decreased sharply, it would be logical to conclude that the number of people watching Super Screen-produced movies would also fall. If such a phenomenon was due to a specific reason, for example, an ongoing war which lead to massive amounts of inflation, then increasing the advertising budget would not persuade the public to watch the movies. Thus, the argument must provide answers to the question whether only the number of people watching the Super Screen-produced movies decreased or the decrease was consistent irrespective of the movie. If the answer is that the overall demand for movies decreased, increasing the advertising budget would not be as effective as say, decreasing the cost of movies. On the other hand, if the overall demand for movies was not affected, it would be wise to increase the advertising budget for the movies as well as check whether the movies produced are good enough to attract public.
Second, the argument needs to answer the question from where were the positive reviews collected - whether these reviews were available to the public, that is, printed in newspapers, magazines; shown as a poll on television etc. or were letters sent to the production company commending their movie. If the reviews are public, then it is likely that people have already seen them; however, they still were not convinced to watch the movies. Then, increasing the budget for advertising is unlikely to have any considerable effect on the number of people watching the movies. On the other hand, if the answer to question is that these reviews were not public, showing these reviews to the public in terms of advertising could be extremely beneficial for the movies. The public could have been dissuaded by the lack of reviews for the movie and making these reviews available to public could help greatly in improving the image of the company as well as the movies in the people's eyes.
Finally, the movies might be of critical acclaim - that is, the movies are art films and portray subtle characteristics of a good movie, however, it is possible that the public does not like such movies and prefers movies which are entertaining. Thus, the argument must answer the question about the similarity between the general likings of the public and the type of movies produced by the company. If these are similar, increasing advertisements would help boost the number of people watching the movies.
However, as the author fails to answer these questions in the argument provided, it is very difficult to believe in the author's conclusions. If the author were to provide answers to the aforementioned questions, then his/her position could have been strengthened. But because these questions are not answered, the argument is flawed and the conclusion is baseless.
| 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 |
- The first step to self-knowledge is rejection of the familiar. 58
- A nation should require all of its students to study the same national curriculum until they enter college. 83
- As we acquire more knowledge, things do not become more comprehensible, but more complex and more mysterious. 50
- 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 62
- 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. 54
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 36, Rule ID: WHETHER[5]
Message: Can you shorten this phrase to just 'whether', or rephrase the sentence to avoid "the question"?
Suggestion: whether
.... First, the author needs to answer the question whether the number of people attending Super Sc...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 640, Rule ID: WHETHER[5]
Message: Can you shorten this phrase to just 'whether', or rephrase the sentence to avoid "the question"?
Suggestion: whether
...s, the argument must provide answers to the question whether only the number of people watching the ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'but', 'finally', 'first', 'however', 'if', 'second', 'so', 'still', 'then', 'thus', 'well', 'for example', 'as well as', 'in spite of', 'on the other hand']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.246753246753 0.25644967241 96% => OK
Verbs: 0.178571428571 0.15541462614 115% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0698051948052 0.0836205057962 83% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0616883116883 0.0520304965353 119% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0146103896104 0.0272364105082 54% => OK
Prepositions: 0.113636363636 0.125424944231 91% => OK
Participles: 0.0584415584416 0.0416121511921 140% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.72277806811 2.79052419416 98% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0357142857143 0.026700313972 134% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.001811407834 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.136363636364 0.113004496875 121% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0243506493506 0.0255425247493 95% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.00974025974026 0.0127820249294 76% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 3436.0 2731.13054187 126% => OK
No of words: 560.0 446.07635468 126% => OK
Chars per words: 6.13571428571 6.12365571057 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.8645985582 4.57801047555 106% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.414285714286 0.378187486979 110% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.282142857143 0.287650121315 98% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.182142857143 0.208842608468 87% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.108928571429 0.135150697306 81% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.72277806811 2.79052419416 98% => OK
Unique words: 213.0 207.018472906 103% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.380357142857 0.469332199767 81% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
Word variations: 44.5135443997 52.1807786196 85% => OK
How many sentences: 20.0 20.039408867 100% => OK
Sentence length: 28.0 23.2022227129 121% => OK
Sentence length SD: 47.7645004161 57.7814097925 83% => OK
Chars per sentence: 171.8 141.986410481 121% => OK
Words per sentence: 28.0 23.2022227129 121% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.8 0.724660767414 110% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 3.58251231527 56% => OK
Readability: 56.2142857143 51.9672348444 108% => OK
Elegance: 1.64331210191 1.8405768891 89% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.368586159206 0.441005458295 84% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.201827866918 0.135418324435 149% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.124934828463 0.0829849096947 151% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.699508897095 0.58762219726 119% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.0989784689276 0.147661913831 67% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.19334488831 0.193483328276 100% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0776434049224 0.0970749176394 80% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.542366854417 0.42659136922 127% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.10366926097 0.0774707102158 134% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.271844429349 0.312017818177 87% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0605853586216 0.0698173142475 87% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 8.33743842365 156% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.87684729064 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.82512315271 21% => More neutral sentences wanted.
Positive topic words: 13.0 6.46551724138 201% => OK
Negative topic words: 6.0 5.36822660099 112% => OK
Neutral topic words: 1.0 2.82389162562 35% => OK
Total topic words: 20.0 14.657635468 136% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 62.5 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.75 Out of 6 -- The score is based on the average performance of 20,000 argument essays. This e-grader is not smart enough to check on arguments.
---------------------
Note: This is not the final score. 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.