"According to a recent report from 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 past year. Clearly, the contents of these reviews are not reaching enough of our prospective viewers. Thus, the problem lies not with the quality of our movies but with the public's lack of awareness that movies of good quality are available. Super Screen should therefore allocate a greater share of its budget next year to reaching the public through advertising."
Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the recommendation and the argument on which it is based are reasonable. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the recommendation.
The given argument in the memo from the advertising director states that due to the lack of advertising of the movies produced by the production company, its potential viewers are not aware of its good quality content. Therefore, to increase the publicity a larger chunk of the next yearly budget should be allocated for advertising. But before we go ahead with this recommendation, there are many questions to be asked regarding the reasoning provided in the argument, without which proceeding with the suggestion would be hasty and impractical.
To begin, the argument states that the percentage of positive reviews have increased from the past year, but there has been no mention made by what factor. It might be possible that there has just been a small degree of increase in the range of say 1-5 percent? If this is true, the assumption made that the problem isn't with the quality of content but the advertising outreach is falsified. If such concrete data were available, we would be able to calculate the actual percent increase, thereby validating the aforementioned claim. Therefore, without further details of the precise percent increase and information about the survey, this assumption is unreasonable.
In addition, it is mentioned that the number of people attending the production company's movies has decreased but its positive reviews have increased. Could this result in a cause-effect relationship? Since the number of viewers has decreased it is understood that the number of negative reviews might have also attenuated, which would give a false idea that relatively, number of positive reviews has blown up. Moreover, even if the affirmative reviews would have genuinely increased, it might be due to some other factors. It might be possible that the movies produces only cater to a niche audience and are published on topics which are detested by wide masses. Therefore, due to this specific genre of movies, the positive reviews have increased. But if this were true, it raises glaring questions on the assumption made by the director on the impeccable quality of movies. Therefore, in order to understand the viewer pattern at a much greater detail, pivotal information like number of viewers, nature and genre of the movies, number of positive and negative reviews is required.
Lastly, there is an inherent assumption made by the argument that the advertising is not reaching potential viewers and they are unaware of the production company's "quality" content. But is this really true? There is no detail provided of the pervasiveness of the advertising campaign. What was its initial budget, what were the modes of advertising, the spatial and temporal details of the campaign and most importantly, the feedback from the venture? All these significant questions remain unanswered, without which assuming that the targeted advertisements are not reaching potential patrons is false. It might be possible that there is good penetration in the company's advertising campaign, but its content is not able to excite or influence its viewers, hence leading to fewer people attending screenings.
In conclusion, in order to analyze the credibility and effectiveness of the recommendation of increasing the annual advertising budget, the above mentioned questions need to be answered, without which the argument as it stands is weak and does not hold water.
| 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 |
- People who make decisions based on emotion and justify those decisions with logic afterwards are poor decision makers Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered to decide whether the recommendation is likely to have the 50
- According to a recent report from 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 actu 58
- The primary goal of education is to get a job 62
- The diagram below shows how electricity is generated in a hydroelectric power station Summarize the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant 73
- The diagram below shows how electricity is generated in a hydroelectric power station Summarize the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant 73
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 4 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 4 2
No. of Sentences: 23 15
No. of Words: 540 350
No. of Characters: 2778 1500
No. of Different Words: 232 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.821 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.144 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.839 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 212 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 171 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 124 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 80 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 23.478 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.122 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.696 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.3 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.498 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.062 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 317, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: isn't
...e, the assumption made that the problem isnt with the quality of content but the adv...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, hence, if, lastly, moreover, really, regarding, so, therefore, in addition, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 35.0 19.6327345309 178% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.9520958084 93% => OK
Conjunction : 18.0 11.1786427146 161% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 13.6137724551 118% => OK
Pronoun: 36.0 28.8173652695 125% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 74.0 55.5748502994 133% => OK
Nominalization: 22.0 16.3942115768 134% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2859.0 2260.96107784 126% => OK
No of words: 539.0 441.139720559 122% => OK
Chars per words: 5.30426716141 5.12650576532 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.81833721656 4.56307096286 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.99454103857 2.78398813304 108% => OK
Unique words: 242.0 204.123752495 119% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.448979591837 0.468620217663 96% => OK
syllable_count: 900.9 705.55239521 128% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 4.96107784431 181% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 5.0 1.67365269461 299% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 11.0 4.22255489022 261% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 19.7664670659 116% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 22.8473053892 101% => OK
Sentence length SD: 56.6503219691 57.8364921388 98% => OK
Chars per sentence: 124.304347826 119.503703932 104% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.4347826087 23.324526521 100% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.34782608696 5.70786347227 76% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 8.20758483034 158% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => 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: 0.134330290445 0.218282227539 62% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0407469273856 0.0743258471296 55% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0539666213478 0.0701772020484 77% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0646226099566 0.128457276422 50% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0516937461086 0.0628817314937 82% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.2 14.3799401198 106% => 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: 13.76 12.5979740519 109% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.82 8.32208582834 106% => OK
difficult_words: 138.0 98.500998004 140% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 12.3882235529 117% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.1389221557 101% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => 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.