"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 memo from the advertising director of Super Screen Movie Production Company, the director concludes that for the contents of the company to reach more prospective viewers, the company should allocate a greater share of its budget next year to reaching the public through advertising. He based his conclusion on the fact that the problem of the company lies not with the quality of movies produced but in the lack of public awareness of the available 'good' quality movies. However, for the director's conclusion to be properly evaluated, three questions must be answered.
First, will the budget for next year be enough to cover for the advertising expenses? The director assumes that the budget can take care of the advertising bills. This may not be the case as there may already be other pressing and exigent needs of the company already and hence need for input for o. It is also possible that during the year, other unexpected expenses may crop up and will require more than 50% of the total budget to cater for them. If either of the above scenarios is true, then the director's conclusion is not viable.
Furthermore, what type of advertisement is the director planning to use and how effective will the method be? The director did not state clearly the method of advertisement to be made use of. He needs to explain the method of advertisement to be put in place. He also needs to provide evidence to show the efficacy of the method to be employed. If the director can answer the above question and provide evidence in form of scientific analysis to back up his claim, then his original argument will be significantly strengthened.
Finally, even if the budget is solvent enough to cover for advertisement cost, and advertisement is a good way of reaching the prospective viewers, the director needs to answer if the increase in public awareness will ultimately yield increase in attendance to the company's movie. This may not be the case as viewers might have been bought away to be a new television station that has just moved to the location. If the director can answer for sure that the viewers will return then his argument is further strengthened.
In conclusion, although the director's conclusion on reaching more prospective viewer may be true, it is based on several unfounded assumptions that weaken the persuasive of his argument. The director needs to answer the above three questions for his argument to be properly evaluated.
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: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 17 15
No. of Words: 416 350
No. of Characters: 2002 1500
No. of Different Words: 176 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.516 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.812 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.735 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 140 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 111 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 82 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 44 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 24.471 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 12.862 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.706 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.372 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.597 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.191 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 496, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'directors'' or 'director's'?
Suggestion: directors'; director's
...e good quality movies. However, for the directors conclusion to be properly evaluated, th...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 502, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'directors'' or 'director's'?
Suggestion: directors'; director's
...f the above scenarios is true, then the directors conclusion is not viable. Furthermor...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 29, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'directors'' or 'director's'?
Suggestion: directors'; director's
...gthened. In conclusion, although the directors conclusion on reaching more prospective...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, furthermore, hence, however, if, may, so, then, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 23.0 19.6327345309 117% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 18.0 12.9520958084 139% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 11.1786427146 63% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 13.6137724551 51% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 22.0 28.8173652695 76% => OK
Preposition: 58.0 55.5748502994 104% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 16.3942115768 98% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2047.0 2260.96107784 91% => OK
No of words: 416.0 441.139720559 94% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.92067307692 5.12650576532 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.51620172871 4.56307096286 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.78009250563 2.78398813304 100% => OK
Unique words: 182.0 204.123752495 89% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.4375 0.468620217663 93% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 647.1 705.55239521 92% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.76447105788 68% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 19.7664670659 91% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 22.8473053892 101% => OK
Sentence length SD: 64.7838047511 57.8364921388 112% => OK
Chars per sentence: 113.722222222 119.503703932 95% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.1111111111 23.324526521 99% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.88888888889 5.70786347227 86% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.88822355289 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.67664670659 150% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.139225201229 0.218282227539 64% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0475236863337 0.0743258471296 64% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0621551793304 0.0701772020484 89% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0859140461064 0.128457276422 67% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0768111685288 0.0628817314937 122% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.3 14.3799401198 92% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 48.13 48.3550499002 100% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.197005988 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.55 12.5979740519 92% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.62 8.32208582834 92% => OK
difficult_words: 75.0 98.500998004 76% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 12.3882235529 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.1389221557 101% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => 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.