Argument Topic: "The following is taken from a memo from the advertising director of the Super Screen Movie Production Company. "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.
In the given memo, the advertising director concludes that the Super Screen Movie Production Compnay should increase its budget for advertising. The director concludes based on the premise that the contents of the review, which were positive, are not reaching enought to thier prospective viewers. However, the conclsion drawn by the director may hold water, it rests on several major assumptions that, if not substantiated, weakens the persuaviness of the argument. Before we can evaluate the argument, these three questions must be addressed.
First, is the survey by the marketing team scientific? What is the sample size? Moreover, which medium was the survey conducted? It is possible that the survey sample may not have been the complete representative of the public. Perhaps, the survey involve only the people who are rather not interested in watching movies or are reluctant to provide positive answers. It is highly likely that the survey was conducted during time span which did not account to decrease in people attending the movie. Unless, we are provided with statistical data regarding the survey, its validity and claim cannot be verified. If the above is true, then the argument is significantly weakened.
Furthermore, is there only one reason for the few people attending the movie. The prompt claims that only the public's lack of interest is attributed. However, this might not be the case. Perhaps, the people would have fonud another form of entertainment to induge such as recreational activites such as cirus, theatre or sports. Also, another production companies would have emerged and delivered a super hit movie which further persuaded people to not attend their movies. If any of the above has merit, then the argument does not hold water.
Finally, is the advertising medium, currently being used, reaching out to its inteneded audience? It is highly likely that the medium used by the comapny for advertising is not serving its purpose with the eficacy demanded. Perhaps, a new medium would have emerged with better reach to the audience. Also, the technique would be novel and successful to attract potential people.Thus only increasing the budge for current form of advertising, would make no change, as the medium is at fault. If either of the above is true, then the conclusion drawn in the original argument is considerably flawed.
In conclusion, the argument as it stands now, is significantly flawed due to its reliance on several unwarranted assumptions. If the director is able to provide the answers to the above questions and perhaps, conduct a scientific survey along with evidences, then it will be possible to determine whether increasing advertising budget would help reach the positive review to the public.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 25 15
No. of Words: 444 350
No. of Characters: 2251 1500
No. of Different Words: 215 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.59 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.07 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.684 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 174 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 123 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 89 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 54 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 17.76 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.165 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.64 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.275 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.477 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.08 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 379, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: Thus
... successful to attract potential people.Thus only increasing the budge for current f...
^^^^
Line 7, column 379, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
... successful to attract potential people.Thus only increasing the budge for current f...
^^^^
Line 7, column 400, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
...t potential people.Thus only increasing the budge for current form of advertising, would ...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, furthermore, however, if, may, moreover, regarding, so, then, thus, in conclusion, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 30.0 19.6327345309 153% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.9520958084 108% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 11.1786427146 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 12.0 13.6137724551 88% => OK
Pronoun: 23.0 28.8173652695 80% => OK
Preposition: 45.0 55.5748502994 81% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 16.3942115768 73% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2326.0 2260.96107784 103% => OK
No of words: 443.0 441.139720559 100% => OK
Chars per words: 5.25056433409 5.12650576532 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.58776254615 4.56307096286 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.80014361852 2.78398813304 101% => OK
Unique words: 227.0 204.123752495 111% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.512415349887 0.468620217663 109% => OK
syllable_count: 722.7 705.55239521 102% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 4.96107784431 161% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 7.0 2.70958083832 258% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 25.0 19.7664670659 126% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 22.8473053892 74% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 52.0288227812 57.8364921388 90% => OK
Chars per sentence: 93.04 119.503703932 78% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.72 23.324526521 76% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.68 5.70786347227 82% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 8.20758483034 146% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.88822355289 73% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.67664670659 171% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.13874964862 0.218282227539 64% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0369688054059 0.0743258471296 50% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0545283156758 0.0701772020484 78% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0802030033828 0.128457276422 62% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0508080842163 0.0628817314937 81% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.2 14.3799401198 85% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 54.22 48.3550499002 112% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 12.197005988 81% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.87 12.5979740519 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.79 8.32208582834 106% => OK
difficult_words: 121.0 98.500998004 123% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 6.5 12.3882235529 52% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 8.8 11.1389221557 79% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.