Argument Topic: "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.
The memoradan of the Super Screen Movie Production Company states that their reduction in views of programs is solely due to the deviod of proper advertisement. In coming to this conclusion the advertising director made some unstated assumptions. Without enough evidence, these assumptions may not hold water and thus the conclusion becomes unwarranted. Three of the major unstated assumptions are discussed in brief and by showing evidence for such assumptions, the advertising director can state an even more strong conclusion.
Firstly, the advertising director stated that the percentage of positive reviews is compareable to the quality of the movies. But he didn't give any evidence about the review count. Perhaps, only a meagre number of people reviewed the movie and nearly all of them gave high reviews. Surely this does not represent the whole majority of the population. And in fact it seems to be the case for this Super Screen movie procudtion company. Due to less viewers, the amount of reviewers is also low. Although the positive reviews increased over the years, the amount of reviews also dwindled resulting from less viewers. Thus, before coming to the conclusion about the movie review, the advertising director should also state the review count trend over the years.
Secondly, advertising director's conjecture about the quality of the movies may be fallacious. Just by depending on the positive reviews, he made the conclusion that the movies are of great quality. But to determine a movie's quality, critc's response about the movie are of course needed. Without giving any evidence relating critics reviews and just by determining the positive review percentage, the movie cannot be concluded as better quality. It may be even possible that, the main reason for diminishing viewers is due to the decreasing quality over the years and such more and stronger evidence is needed to ensure that the quality of the movies are properly maintained.
Lastly, the advertising director made the assumption that the current advertising is not enough to reach the public. This is also on the basis of the conjecture over just the positive reviews. Perhaps the news about the movies are reaching the intended viewers but due to other reasons such as movie quality, a change in content of people's penchant for such movies, etc. may be the cause of less viewers. Yes, advertising helps increase the viewer of such movies. But people are not entitled to view them if the content of the movies is not what the general people are looking for. People's taste change over time. Thus, it is completly normal for the people to view the content of the movie as obsolete even if it retains the original quality. Thus, further evidence about people's penchant for movie originality is needed and proper evaluation of advertisement can help ensueing a stronger conclusion.
From the above stated statements, we can see that the advertising director's assumption about the quality, the reviews of the movies, and the requirement of more advertisement is based on incomplete evidence. More evidence is needed stating the quality of the movies, target viewers predilection of such movies, and the number of reviews of each movies. Thus a warrented conclusion can be made and properly state which section of the program need to be re-evaluated.
| 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 |
- We can usually learn much more from people whose views we share than from people whose views contradict our own disagreement can cause stress and inhibit learning 54
- Government officials should rely on their own judgment rather than unquestioningly carry out the will of the people they serve 50
- Argument Topic 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 58
- 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
- A nation should require all of its students to study the same national curriculum until they enter college 50
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 9 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 15 2
No. of Sentences: 28 15
No. of Words: 544 350
No. of Characters: 2743 1500
No. of Different Words: 216 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.829 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.042 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.66 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 215 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 155 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 105 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 60 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 19.429 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.082 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.643 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.318 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.485 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.135 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 134, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: didn't
...le to the quality of the movies. But he didnt give any evidence about the review coun...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 443, Rule ID: FEWER_LESS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'fewer'? The noun viewers is countable.
Suggestion: fewer
...Screen movie procudtion company. Due to less viewers, the amount of reviewers is als...
^^^^
Line 3, column 601, Rule ID: FEWER_LESS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'fewer'? The noun viewers is countable.
Suggestion: fewer
...of reviews also dwindled resulting from less viewers. Thus, before coming to the con...
^^^^
Line 7, column 392, Rule ID: FEWER_LESS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'fewer'? The noun viewers is countable.
Suggestion: fewer
...r such movies, etc. may be the cause of less viewers. Yes, advertising helps increas...
^^^^
Line 9, column 354, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
...d the number of reviews of each movies. Thus a warrented conclusion can be made and ...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, if, lastly, look, may, second, secondly, so, thus, in brief, in fact, of course, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 26.0 19.6327345309 132% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.9520958084 85% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 11.1786427146 134% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 13.6137724551 59% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 22.0 28.8173652695 76% => OK
Preposition: 72.0 55.5748502994 130% => OK
Nominalization: 21.0 16.3942115768 128% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2804.0 2260.96107784 124% => OK
No of words: 543.0 441.139720559 123% => OK
Chars per words: 5.16390423573 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.82725184711 4.56307096286 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.73076261574 2.78398813304 98% => OK
Unique words: 225.0 204.123752495 110% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.414364640884 0.468620217663 88% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 883.8 705.55239521 125% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 6.0 1.67365269461 358% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 29.0 19.7664670659 147% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 22.8473053892 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 48.3840413544 57.8364921388 84% => OK
Chars per sentence: 96.6896551724 119.503703932 81% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.724137931 23.324526521 80% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.96551724138 5.70786347227 69% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 5.25449101796 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 16.0 8.20758483034 195% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 6.88822355289 44% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 10.0 4.67664670659 214% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.185073968107 0.218282227539 85% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0562057087179 0.0743258471296 76% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0481654161431 0.0701772020484 69% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.110475323989 0.128457276422 86% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0276556095226 0.0628817314937 44% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.2 14.3799401198 85% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 48.3550499002 110% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 12.197005988 84% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.65 12.5979740519 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.82 8.32208582834 94% => OK
difficult_words: 113.0 98.500998004 115% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 12.3882235529 93% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.1389221557 83% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => 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.