"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 the super screen movie production company, it is stated that fewer people attended super screen-produced movies than in other years, and yet the percentage of positive reviews by movie reviewers actually increased. They have come to the conclusion a greater share of its budget next year would be allocated to reaching the public through advertising. However, before the recommendation can be properly evaluated, two questions must be answered.
First of all, did the negative reviews also decrease?. Movies can have a lot of positive reviews but also have more negative reviews. For example a blockbuster movie released last year could have about 100 positive review, if the bad review exceeds it by 50, this would lead to fewer people watching it even though it had more review previous years. Perhaps, people go through the reviews before deciding to watch the movies. If this scenario has merit, then conclusion drawn in the original argument is significantly weakened.
Secondly, did they release the same amount of movie and the same type of movie as previous year?. The director prematurely assumed that the same type of movie was produced over the years. For example, if the twenty movies each were released from previous years, but only ten was released last year, it is expected to have fewer viewers last year compared to previous years. Also, if majority of their viewers were interested in horror movies which had been showing before, compared to a change in the type of movie showing, to romantic one. It is also imminent to expect a reduction in viewers because there is a discrepancy in their preference of movie. If the above is true, then the argument does not hold water.
In conclusion, the argument as it stands, is now considerably flawed due to its reliance on several unwarranted assumptions. If the director is able to answer the two questions above and offer more evidence, perhaps in the form of a systematic research study, then it will be possible to fully evaluate the viability of the proposed recommendation to allocate a greater share of its budget next year to reaching the public through advertising.
| 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 |
- The best way for a society to prepare its young people for leadership in government industry or other fields is by instilling in them a sense of cooperation not competition Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree wi 62
- 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 ot 54
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 4 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 3 2
No. of Sentences: 16 15
No. of Words: 363 350
No. of Characters: 1776 1500
No. of Different Words: 178 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.365 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.893 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.664 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 129 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 100 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 74 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 29 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.688 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 12.215 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.812 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.323 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.526 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.086 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...uated, two questions must be answered. First of all, did the negative reviews a...
^^^^^^
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...al argument is significantly weakened. Secondly, did they release the same amou...
^^^^^^
Line 4, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...then the argument does not hold water. In conclusion, the argument as it stands...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, first, however, if, second, secondly, so, then, for example, in conclusion, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 19.6327345309 87% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 12.9520958084 54% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 11.1786427146 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 3.0 13.6137724551 22% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 19.0 28.8173652695 66% => OK
Preposition: 52.0 55.5748502994 94% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 16.3942115768 61% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1821.0 2260.96107784 81% => OK
No of words: 363.0 441.139720559 82% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.01652892562 5.12650576532 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.3649236973 4.56307096286 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.74238238709 2.78398813304 99% => OK
Unique words: 184.0 204.123752495 90% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.506887052342 0.468620217663 108% => OK
syllable_count: 581.4 705.55239521 82% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Article: 2.0 8.76447105788 23% => OK
Subordination: 7.0 2.70958083832 258% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 19.7664670659 81% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 72.8207345129 57.8364921388 126% => OK
Chars per sentence: 113.8125 119.503703932 95% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.6875 23.324526521 97% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.8125 5.70786347227 119% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 6.88822355289 44% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.67664670659 128% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.227844659503 0.218282227539 104% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0662659185617 0.0743258471296 89% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.112609218861 0.0701772020484 160% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.138965730428 0.128457276422 108% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.117275501294 0.0628817314937 187% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.6 14.3799401198 95% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 48.3550499002 102% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.13 12.5979740519 96% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.34 8.32208582834 100% => OK
difficult_words: 83.0 98.500998004 84% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => 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.