THE FOLLOWING IS TAKEN FROM A MEMO FROM THE ADVERTISING DIRECTOR OF SUPERSCREEN MOVIE PRODUCTION COMPANY
“ACCORDING TO A RECENT REPORT FROM OUR MARKETING DEPARTMENT, DURING THE PAST YEAR, FEWER PEOPLE ATTENDED SUPERSCREEN PRODUCED MOVIES THAN IN ANY OTHER YEAR. AND YET THE PERCENTAGE POSITIVE REVIEW BY MOVIE REVIEWERS ABOUT SPECIFIC SUPERSCREEN MOVIES ACTUALLY INCREASED DURING THE PAST YEAR. CLEARLY, THE CONTENTS OF THIS REVIEW ARE NOT REACHING ENOUGH OF OUR PROSPECTIVE VIEWERS. THUS, THE PROBLEM LIE NOT WITH THE QUALITY OF OUR MOVIES BUT WITH THE PUBLIC’S LACK OF AWARENESS THAT MOVIES OF GOOD QUALITY ARE AVAILABLE. SUPERSCREEN SHOULD THEREFORE ALLOCATE A GREATER SHARE OF ITS BUDGET NEXT YEAR TO REACHING THE PUBLIC THROUGH ADVERTISING.”
Reports from the marketing department of Super screen revealed decrease in the number of attendees for Super Screen produced movies, but then percentage of positive reviews by movie reviewers increased; based on this the writer assumed contents of the reviews are not reaching prospective viewers and thereby concluded is is as result of public's lack of aware of Superscreen movies.
To begin, the author claimed that movie reviewers gave a positive review of specific Super Screen movies. The writer assumed that the same movies that was reviewed are preferred by populace of that locality; however, this assumption might be wrong as movies preferences are specific to age groups. Supposing the population of people in the suburb are more of children and superscreen produces adult movies, this could explain the reason for the decline. It is pertinent that the writer look into the population mix of attendees
In addition, the writer assumes that public lack of awareness is a reason for the decline, i think this was a bit myopic as there is no details of the media of comunication used by the movie reviewers to diseminate the review. Published reviews in the dailies could limit access of potential attendees to such information.
Also, the writer assumed that only Super screen produces good quality movies. It is possible that Super Screen's movies quality though positively rated, is not ranking high as other movie producing company's and as such viewers prefer other company's movie over SuperScreen's.
In conclusion, the writer failed to purport a convincing reason for recommending budget increment in advert to boost number of movie attendees for SuperScreen produced movies. To validate this position, i argue that a further review be conducted on the population mix of attendees of SuperScreen movies, medium of advert to be employed to reach its target audience, competitive stength in comparison with it's competitors.
- A nation should require all its students to study the same national curriculum until they enter college. 66
- Some people believe that our ever-increasing use of technology significantly reduces our opportunities for human interaction. Other people believe that technology provides us with new and better ways to communicate and connect with one another. 83
- Over the past year, our late night news program has devoted increased time to national news and less time to weather and local news. During this period, most of the complaints received from viewers were concerned with our station's coverage of weathe 73
- THE FOLLOWING IS TAKEN FROM A MEMO FROM THE ADVERTISING DIRECTOR OF SUPERSCREEN MOVIE PRODUCTION COMPANY“ACCORDING TO A RECENT REPORT FROM OUR MARKETING DEPARTMENT, DURING THE PAST YEAR, FEWER PEOPLE ATTENDED SUPERSCREEN PRODUCED MOVIES THAN IN ANY OTHE 37
- "According to the 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 the movie reviewers about specific Super Scr 16
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: ??? out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 11 15
No. of Words: 309 350
No. of Characters: 1602 1500
No. of Different Words: 157 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.193 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.184 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.734 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 137 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 93 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 69 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 45 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 28.091 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 14.029 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.545 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.41 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.679 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.092 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 320, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: is
...ospective viewers and thereby concluded is is as result of publics lack of aware of S...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 168, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...at the same movies that was reviewed are preferred by populace of that locality;...
^^
Line 5, column 194, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...s reviewed are preferred by populace of that locality; however, this assumption ...
^^
Line 9, column 92, Rule ID: I_LOWERCASE[2]
Message: Did you mean 'I'?
Suggestion: I
... awareness is a reason for the decline, i think this was a bit myopic as there is...
^
Line 9, column 125, Rule ID: THERE_S_MANY[4]
Message: Did you mean 'there are no details'?
Suggestion: there are no details
...cline, i think this was a bit myopic as there is no details of the media of comunication used by th...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 17, column 204, Rule ID: I_LOWERCASE[2]
Message: Did you mean 'I'?
Suggestion: I
...uced movies. To validate this position, i argue that a further review be conducte...
^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, however, if, look, so, then, i think, in addition, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 19.6327345309 81% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 12.9520958084 23% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 11.1786427146 36% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 9.0 13.6137724551 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 20.0 28.8173652695 69% => OK
Preposition: 45.0 55.5748502994 81% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 16.3942115768 67% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1644.0 2260.96107784 73% => OK
No of words: 309.0 441.139720559 70% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.32038834951 5.12650576532 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.1926597562 4.56307096286 92% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.78623298167 2.78398813304 100% => OK
Unique words: 154.0 204.123752495 75% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.498381877023 0.468620217663 106% => OK
syllable_count: 513.9 705.55239521 73% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 5.0 8.76447105788 57% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.70958083832 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 10.0 19.7664670659 51% => 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: 30.0 22.8473053892 131% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 91.4004376357 57.8364921388 158% => OK
Chars per sentence: 164.4 119.503703932 138% => OK
Words per sentence: 30.9 23.324526521 132% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.5 5.70786347227 131% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 5.25449101796 114% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 6.88822355289 29% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.67664670659 43% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.148973039112 0.218282227539 68% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0655657658027 0.0743258471296 88% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.046191725625 0.0701772020484 66% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0921038922695 0.128457276422 72% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0383383803304 0.0628817314937 61% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 19.1 14.3799401198 133% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 32.57 48.3550499002 67% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 16.2 12.197005988 133% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.17 12.5979740519 112% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.72 8.32208582834 117% => OK
difficult_words: 90.0 98.500998004 91% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 17.0 12.3882235529 137% => OK
gunning_fog: 14.0 11.1389221557 126% => OK
text_standard: 17.0 11.9071856287 143% => 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.