"According to a recent report by 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 last year. Clearly, the content of these reviews is not reaching enough of our prospective viewers. Thus, the problem lies not in the quality of our movies but with public's lack of awareness that movies of good quality are available. Super Screen should therefore allocate a greater quantity of its budget next year to reaching the public through advertising."
There are several flaws in the statement of the memo from the advertising director of the Super Screen Movie Production Company. They are discussed below.
First of all, the advertising director emphasised on the hike of positive rating of Super Screen -produced movies even though the viewer were lesser in number in the past year than before. There can be different reasons behind the rise of the positive reviews. For example, the population who came to see movies before might not feel important to give a review about the movie they watched. As there is no clear statement which shows before past year negative reviews dominated, it cannot be assumed that the quality of the movies screened last year were better than before.
Secondly, the director is certain about the reason for less audience in the past year was because of poor publicity of the content of these reviews. But this is not certain that if they advertise more in future, more people will come to cinema hall. There is always a chance of failure even after an outstanding advertisement. The movies might not be up to the mark to viewr's taste.
Finally, the authority is sure that the reason of less crowd in the cinema hall after releasing a movie is lack of people's awareness about that movie only, not the quality of the movie. However, people in that state might get busier than before which can be a possible reason for not visiting cinema halls frequently like before. So even if the quality improves, people cannot enjoy by going there. They might later download or watch the movie from other sources when they find time.
So, it can be concluded that tough the positive reviews surpass in the past year than the years before even though less people attended the movie, it cannot be guaranteed that only with publicity Super Screen Movie Production Company will get more prospective audiences.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-12-24 | Cynic | 43 | view |
| 2019-12-14 | nimesh94 | 42 | view |
| 2019-12-14 | mcmaster | 33 | view |
| 2019-12-10 | pooja.kakde@gmail.com | 59 | view |
| 2019-11-28 | a251ravind | 63 | view |
- Many governments think that economic progress is their most important goal. Some people, however, think other types of progress are equally important for a country. 73
- The two maps below show road access to city hospital in 2007 and in 2010.summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant. 84
- "According to a recent report by 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 movi 43
- A nation should require all of its students to study the same national curriculum until they enter college. 83
- 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. 58
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 2.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 10 2
No. of Sentences: 15 15
No. of Words: 321 350
No. of Characters: 1522 1500
No. of Different Words: 157 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.233 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.741 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.272 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 106 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 66 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 42 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 25 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.4 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.352 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.533 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.337 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.569 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.037 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 143, Rule ID: ADJECTIVE_IN_ATTRIBUTE[1]
Message: A more concise phrase may lose no meaning and sound more powerful.
Suggestion: lesser
...uced movies even though the viewer were lesser in number in the past year than before. There can...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 202, Rule ID: IN_PAST[1]
Message: Did you mean: 'in the future'?
Suggestion: in the future
...not certain that if they advertise more in future, more people will come to cinema hall. ...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 13, column 485, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...from other sources when they find time. So, it can be concluded that tough the p...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 17, column 116, Rule ID: FEWER_LESS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'fewer'? The noun people is countable.
Suggestion: fewer
... year than the years before even though less people attended the movie, it cannot be...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, however, if, second, secondly, so, for example, 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: 12.0 12.9520958084 93% => OK
Conjunction : 2.0 11.1786427146 18% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 17.0 28.8173652695 59% => OK
Preposition: 52.0 55.5748502994 94% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 16.3942115768 43% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1571.0 2260.96107784 69% => OK
No of words: 321.0 441.139720559 73% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.89408099688 5.12650576532 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.23278547379 4.56307096286 93% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.33990191318 2.78398813304 84% => OK
Unique words: 161.0 204.123752495 79% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.501557632399 0.468620217663 107% => OK
syllable_count: 495.0 705.55239521 70% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Article: 5.0 8.76447105788 57% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 0.0 4.22255489022 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 19.7664670659 76% => 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: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 62.4903903724 57.8364921388 108% => OK
Chars per sentence: 104.733333333 119.503703932 88% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.4 23.324526521 92% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.4 5.70786347227 95% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.88822355289 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.67664670659 64% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.350842536065 0.218282227539 161% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.111510024117 0.0743258471296 150% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0964079571371 0.0701772020484 137% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.207942518423 0.128457276422 162% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0985893204003 0.0628817314937 157% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.3 14.3799401198 86% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 58.62 48.3550499002 121% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 12.197005988 84% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.08 12.5979740519 88% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.53 8.32208582834 90% => OK
difficult_words: 58.0 98.500998004 59% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 12.3882235529 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.9071856287 67% => The average readability is low. Need to imporve the language.
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.