The argument is from a memo from an advertisiing director of the Super Screen Movie Production Company. It states that inspite of few people attended the Super Screen produced movies, the percent of positive reviews has been increased during the past year and makes an inference that it is nor because of the quality of the movies that fails to attracyt viewers but with the lack of public arweness that a good quality movie is available and hence, makes a conclusion that to increase its viewes, it should allocate a gretaer budget share to advertising. The arguments is flawed beacuse of the following reasons.
The argument is from a memo from an adb=vertisiing director of the Super Screen Movie Production Company. It states that inspite of few people attended the Super Screen produced movies, the percent of positive reviews has been increased during the past year and makes an inference that it is nor because of the quality of the movies that fails to attracyt viewers but with the lack of public arweness that a good quality movie is available and hence, makes a conclusion that to increase its viewes, it should allocate a gretaer budget share to advertising. The arguments is flawed beacuse of the following reasons.
Firstly, the author fails to mention the number of people who attended previous year and the years before that. Though the percent of positive reviews has been increased, the amount by which it has been increased is not mentioned. For example, there could have been 1 positive reviews oit of 1000 people in past year and now, it could have been 1 out of 10. Also, many would not have given reviews for the movie even though they have watched it. If these cases were proven to be true, the argument does not hold water.
Secondly, the author assumes that more people would watch the movie if there is more good reviews. However, there can be the following situations. For instance, there may not be many people who would be reading the reviews published in the socila media or newspapers but watches the movie because his/her favourite film star is acting in the movie. Or else, there could have been situations last year such as a cyclone hit/ economic recession and hence many people would have not been interested to spend for movies. If this id =s true, the argument falls apart.
Moreover, the author fails to account the quality of the movie and assumes that a simple alloaction of gretaer share of budget would increase viewers to watch movies. There could have been instances such as the movie is not appropriate to watch for many viewers or the quality of those movies is very bad. If either of the true proves to be true, the arguments fails to be valid and hence, any increase in the budget will not result in increase in the viewers.
In conclusion, the argument rests on several unwarranted assumptions. Only when all these assumptions are validated to be true, the argument can be considered valid.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-08-24 | Praveen_Kumar98 | 58 | view |
- A reading passage like the following will appear on your computer screen. You will have 3 minutes to read the passage.In many organizations, perhaps the best way to approach certain new projects is to assemble a group of people into a team. Having a team 3
- It is more important to keep our old friends than it is to make new ones 66
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement People should keep trying to reach their goals even if they seem impossible to achieve Use specific reasons and examples to explain your position 70
- doubt on portrait 3
- Working in Teams 3
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 572, Rule ID: AGREEMENT_SENT_START[4]
Message: You should probably use: 'are'.
Suggestion: are
...get share to advertising. The arguments is flawed beacuse of the following reasons...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, hence, however, if, may, moreover, second, secondly, so, for example, for instance, in conclusion, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 27.0 19.5258426966 138% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.4196629213 113% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 14.8657303371 87% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 11.3162921348 106% => OK
Pronoun: 22.0 33.0505617978 67% => OK
Preposition: 44.0 58.6224719101 75% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 12.9106741573 77% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1935.0 2235.4752809 87% => OK
No of words: 405.0 442.535393258 92% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.77777777778 5.05705443957 94% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.48604634366 4.55969084622 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.42225116707 2.79657885939 87% => OK
Unique words: 185.0 215.323595506 86% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.456790123457 0.4932671777 93% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 596.7 704.065955056 85% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59117977528 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 6.24550561798 48% => OK
Article: 12.0 4.99550561798 240% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 4.0 3.10617977528 129% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.77640449438 56% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.38483146067 23% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 20.2370786517 89% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 23.0359550562 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 88.9612205707 60.3974514979 147% => OK
Chars per sentence: 107.5 118.986275619 90% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.5 23.4991977007 96% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.38888888889 5.21951772744 142% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 10.2758426966 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 5.13820224719 97% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.83258426966 62% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.373502699257 0.243740707755 153% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.105503338084 0.0831039109588 127% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.128511241214 0.0758088955206 170% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.205047765771 0.150359130593 136% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.198560823927 0.0667264976115 298% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.3 14.1392134831 87% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 57.61 48.8420337079 118% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.92365168539 39% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.1743820225 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.74 12.1639044944 88% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.89 8.38706741573 94% => OK
difficult_words: 81.0 100.480337079 81% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 18.0 11.8971910112 151% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.2143820225 96% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.7820224719 93% => 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.