"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."
The argument produced by the company asserts that to increase the views of Super Screen-produced movies, the company should spend more of their budget on advertising to the public. However, the argument has numerous unsubstantiated assumption and is therefore unpersuasive as it stands.
First, the company states that the percentage of positive reviews for the Super Screan-produced movies are rising. However, there are possible flaws on this statement. Since the total viewers of the movie had declined, the percentage of positive review will increase while the total amount of reviews remained. Moreover, it is vague to express just the increasement of the percentage of the reviewers. There must be exact amount of percentage comparison on its previous years or the actual number of written positive reviews. Furthermore, there is a possibility that the negative portion of the review might outweigh the positive reviews. Therefore, there must be extra statistics to support this assertion.
Second, the company assumes that the problem is that no many people are aware of the company's movie. To make this assumption persuasive, there must be other data to support it. For example, since the company does not regard its movie quality, there must be categorical evaluation whether it is true. It can be the critic's appraise or the general public's appraise. Moreover, there should be a statistic on whether public is aware of the movie or not. There might be a possiblity that the public knows the existence of the movie but not considering the movie as entertaining. Maybe the movie's genre does not reach the public's taste of the movie.
Third, the company states that the increasing the portion of the budget will rise the public's attention on their movie. However, there is no evidence that increasing budget on advertising will lead to actual increase on viewing the movie. The company should suggest similar cases on other companys.
In conclusion, the company's assertion that the increasing the budget on advertising will lead to increasement on viewers relies on unsubstantiated assumption and weak evidence. Therefore the argument lacks logical reasoning and evidence.
| 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 |
- Politicians should pursue common ground and reasonable consensus rather than elusive ideals 50
- Do you agree or disagree with the statement that people should always tell the truth
- The following appeared in a memo from a vice president of a large highly diversified company Ten years ago our company had two new office buildings constructed as regional headquarters for two regions The buildings were erected by different construction c 60
- The following appeared in a recommendation from the president of Amburg s Chamber of Commerce Last October the city of Belleville installed high intensity lighting in its central business district and vandalism there declined within a month The city of Am 70
- We learn our most valuable lessons in life from struggling with our limitations rather than from enjoying our successes 50
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 4 2
No. of Sentences: 21 15
No. of Words: 346 350
No. of Characters: 1800 1500
No. of Different Words: 150 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.313 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.202 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.833 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 136 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 109 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 74 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 44 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 16.476 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 5.534 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.714 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.325 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.325 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.088 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 54, Rule ID: NOW[2]
Message: Did you mean 'now' (=at this moment) instead of 'no' (negation)?
Suggestion: now
...ompany assumes that the problem is that no many people are aware of the companys m...
^^
Line 3, column 584, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'movies'' or 'movie's'?
Suggestion: movies'; movie's
...ng the movie as entertaining. Maybe the movies genre does not reach the publics taste ...
^^^^^^
Line 4, column 87, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'publics'' or 'public's'?
Suggestion: publics'; public's
...the portion of the budget will rise the publics attention on their movie. However, ther...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 177, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Therefore,
...tantiated assumption and weak evidence. Therefore the argument lacks logical reasoning an...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, furthermore, however, may, moreover, second, so, therefore, third, while, for example, in conclusion, it is true
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 19.6327345309 87% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.9520958084 108% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 11.1786427146 63% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 13.6137724551 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 21.0 28.8173652695 73% => OK
Preposition: 40.0 55.5748502994 72% => OK
Nominalization: 19.0 16.3942115768 116% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1838.0 2260.96107784 81% => OK
No of words: 346.0 441.139720559 78% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.31213872832 5.12650576532 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.31289638616 4.56307096286 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.90260908439 2.78398813304 104% => OK
Unique words: 152.0 204.123752495 74% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.439306358382 0.468620217663 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 583.2 705.55239521 83% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 4.96107784431 40% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 19.7664670659 106% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 22.8473053892 70% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 35.3734850801 57.8364921388 61% => OK
Chars per sentence: 87.5238095238 119.503703932 73% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.4761904762 23.324526521 71% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.90476190476 5.70786347227 103% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.67664670659 86% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.187000270763 0.218282227539 86% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0573766418065 0.0743258471296 77% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0710268201917 0.0701772020484 101% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0899365204515 0.128457276422 70% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0844387441794 0.0628817314937 134% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.8 14.3799401198 82% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 46.78 48.3550499002 97% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.197005988 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.22 12.5979740519 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.08 8.32208582834 97% => OK
difficult_words: 80.0 98.500998004 81% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 12.3882235529 69% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 11.1389221557 75% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => 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.