"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."
The author of the memo states that despite the low viewing of Super Screen movies in the past year, Super Screen should allocate a greater share of its budget in advertising campaigns. The author supports the claims with a few reasons. But in my view, the author's claims are based on unsubstantiated assumptions and are unpersuasive as it stands. To support my stand, I have stated the following reasons.
Firstly, the author talks about a certain report that showed that very few people attended the Super Screen produced movies in the past year, and yet there was an increase in the number of positive reviews. The author's claim in this argument is flawed and absurd as it does not account for any reliable pieces of evidence. The report which the author mentions, does not state how many people took part in giving the reviews. Maybe, there were only a handful of people giving the reviews and the author is considering that to be a good sign for the industry. For instance, only ten people gave reviews this year from maybe 100 or 1000 that gave their reviews in the previous years. So the report cannot be considered credible as long as the facts or entire statistics of the report are not revealed.
Furthermore, the author states that the contents of the review are not reaching the public. In this world of technology, people can view anything just by clicking a button. So the author's claims are baseless and unconvincing. Maybe the company has never posted their reviews online for people to view. Also, the author thinks that the public lacks awareness of good quality movies as the production company considers their movies as good quality movies. Everybody has their own opinion. Maybe what the author considers good quality might not be the case with other people. So rather than finding faults in people's opinions, the company should focus on making a movie that fits well for everybody and not just a particular group.
Finally, the author states that they will allocate more budget to reach people through advertising. But in my view, the author's claims are just presumptuous and does not guarantee any success. Had the author devised a perfect plan in how to go about these advertising strategies it would have bolstered his claims. So all in all, the author's claims are flawed and lacks mettle. So, the author must consider the above suggestions to make the argument more convincing and well-reasoned.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-08-29 | Eurus Psycho Version | 55 | view |
| 2023-08-21 | riyarmy | 54 | view |
| 2023-08-14 | Saket Choudhary | 68 | view |
| 2023-08-13 | Fahim Shahriar Khan | 58 | view |
| 2023-08-11 | Tanvi Sanandiya | 55 | view |
- Society should identify those children who have special talents and provide training for them at an early age to develop their talents 58
- It is better to go on a trip by oneself than to take a group tour with a guide 70
- The first step to self knowledge is rejection of the familiar Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain your reasoning for the position you take In developing and supporting your po 58
- The real talent of a popular musician cannot accurately be assessed until the musician has been dead for several generations so that his or her fame does not interfere with honest assessment 58
- The following appears in a letter to the editor for the West Lansburg News The tufted groundhog lives in the coastal wetlands of West Lansburg Ancient records suggest that the tufted groundhog once numbered in the millions Since they were declared a wildl 60
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: 23 15
No. of Words: 413 350
No. of Characters: 1972 1500
No. of Different Words: 199 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.508 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.775 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.424 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 154 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 87 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 58 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 28 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 17.957 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.387 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.522 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.334 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.483 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.077 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 343, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'lacks'' or 'lack's'?
Suggestion: lacks'; lack's
...Also, the author thinks that the public lacks awareness of good quality movies as the...
^^^^^
Line 9, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...t more convincing and well-reasoned.
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, firstly, furthermore, may, so, well, for instance, in my view
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 19.6327345309 71% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 12.9520958084 62% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 11.1786427146 125% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 13.6137724551 73% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 27.0 28.8173652695 94% => OK
Preposition: 43.0 55.5748502994 77% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 16.3942115768 30% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2021.0 2260.96107784 89% => OK
No of words: 413.0 441.139720559 94% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.89346246973 5.12650576532 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.50803742585 4.56307096286 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.49904741802 2.78398813304 90% => OK
Unique words: 205.0 204.123752495 100% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.496368038741 0.468620217663 106% => OK
syllable_count: 607.5 705.55239521 86% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 4.96107784431 20% => OK
Article: 13.0 8.76447105788 148% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.70958083832 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 19.7664670659 116% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 22.8473053892 74% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 41.829160151 57.8364921388 72% => OK
Chars per sentence: 87.8695652174 119.503703932 74% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.9565217391 23.324526521 77% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.82608695652 5.70786347227 67% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.20758483034 134% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.88822355289 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.186167691666 0.218282227539 85% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0479366397879 0.0743258471296 64% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0706824572457 0.0701772020484 101% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.117177745472 0.128457276422 91% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0619197695987 0.0628817314937 98% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.6 14.3799401198 74% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 62.68 48.3550499002 130% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.7 12.197005988 71% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.79 12.5979740519 86% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.61 8.32208582834 91% => OK
difficult_words: 82.0 98.500998004 83% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 12.3882235529 85% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 11.1389221557 79% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => 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.