Critical judgment of work in any given field has little value unless it comes from someone who is an expert in that field.
The argument is about the Super Screen Movie Production Company's marketing department that their movies were less viewed despite a positive review: indicating that their movie is certainly made up of good quality and its lack of public awareness causing the decrease in viewers. But this whole scenario is rife with the assumption only as there are no any bold relevant data and information regarding various aspect of the movies and its viewers.
Firstly, arguer is stating that the fewer people attend their movie this year than that of any other year according to the report from the marketing department of the production house. The main flaw in this is that the true number might have been the best to support this statement rather indicating it as a fewer: as few does not indicate that before people's number was extremely huge in fact it might be low from start. Hence, not possible to judge this claim provided by the author.
Secondly, claim of film to be good is mentioned by indication a good percentage of the people reviewed it to be positive. But the percentage will not justify the total number of people involved in the review than the past year. Similarly, on the basis of this another claim of content not reaching to prospective reviews is made and again this is assumption only as this might be the outcome of movies being not so good in the content. So, again a conclusion of this can be drawn as full of flaw contents can be made clearly,
Thirdly, the main problem is given to the lack of awareness factor that is causing decrease in the number of viewers rather that to the content. And again there is no any certain data or information to prove it as the main reason of downfall of movie can be of its lack of content wanted by the people as mentioned flaw in above paragraph. So, there is no any case which support the final claim of the argument as a greater share of the budget must be allocated to reach the public via advertisement as it is not sure that the lack of response or the excitement is the result of lack of awareness or it is the bad or tepid content of the movie.
Finally, it can be conclude that this argument is full of lacuna only.
Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
---|---|---|---|
2024-07-31 | barcelona433 | 83 | view |
2024-02-22 | Zahid6400 | 58 | view |
2023-09-16 | Jeyodi123 | 58 | view |
2023-09-04 | wopona8219 | 75 | view |
2023-08-23 | Anil2044 | 50 | view |
- Recently there have been discussions about ending Grove College s century old tradition of all female education by admitting male students into our programs At a recent faculty meeting a majority of faculty members voted in favor of coeducation arguing th 54
- An innovative treatment has come to our attention that promises to significantly reduce absenteeism in our schools and workplaces A study reports that in nearby East Meria where fish consumption is very high people visit the doctor only once or twice per 70
- A nation should require all its students to study the same national curriculum until they enter college rather than allow schools in different parts of the nation to determine which academic courses to offer 66
- In surveys Mason City residents rank water sports swimming boating and fish ing among their favorite recreational activities The Mason River flowing through the city is rarely used for these pursuits however and the city park department devotes little of 59
- 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 actu 50
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 350, Rule ID: NOW[2]
Message: Did you mean 'now' (=at this moment) instead of 'no' (negation)?
Suggestion: now
...e with the assumption only as there are no any bold relevant data and information ...
^^
Line 3, column 357, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ews is made and again this is assumption only as this might be the outcome of mov...
^^
Line 4, column 165, Rule ID: NOW[2]
Message: Did you mean 'now' (=at this moment) instead of 'no' (negation)?
Suggestion: now
...that to the content. And again there is no any certain data or information to prov...
^^
Line 4, column 354, Rule ID: NOW[2]
Message: Did you mean 'now' (=at this moment) instead of 'no' (negation)?
Suggestion: now
...d flaw in above paragraph. So, there is no any case which support the final claim ...
^^
Line 4, column 623, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...k of awareness or it is the bad or tepid content of the movie. Finally, it can b...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, firstly, hence, if, regarding, second, secondly, similarly, so, third, thirdly, in fact
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 30.0 19.5258426966 154% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.4196629213 72% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 14.8657303371 74% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 11.3162921348 97% => OK
Pronoun: 33.0 33.0505617978 100% => OK
Preposition: 57.0 58.6224719101 97% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 12.9106741573 116% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1788.0 2235.4752809 80% => OK
No of words: 395.0 442.535393258 89% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.52658227848 5.05705443957 90% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.45809453852 4.55969084622 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.43847544051 2.79657885939 87% => OK
Unique words: 173.0 215.323595506 80% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.437974683544 0.4932671777 89% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 568.8 704.065955056 81% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.59117977528 88% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 6.24550561798 16% => OK
Article: 3.0 4.99550561798 60% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 3.10617977528 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 3.0 1.77640449438 169% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.38483146067 23% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 20.2370786517 59% => 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: 32.0 23.0359550562 139% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 74.9705497734 60.3974514979 124% => OK
Chars per sentence: 149.0 118.986275619 125% => OK
Words per sentence: 32.9166666667 23.4991977007 140% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.0 5.21951772744 172% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 7.80617977528 64% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 10.2758426966 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 5.13820224719 117% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.83258426966 21% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0324123807615 0.243740707755 13% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0140892271511 0.0831039109588 17% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0161566744533 0.0758088955206 21% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0188192136981 0.150359130593 13% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0179075367506 0.0667264976115 27% => 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: 16.4 14.1392134831 116% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 55.92 48.8420337079 114% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 12.1743820225 110% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 9.59 12.1639044944 79% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.34 8.38706741573 99% => OK
difficult_words: 78.0 100.480337079 78% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 18.0 11.8971910112 151% => OK
gunning_fog: 14.8 11.2143820225 132% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.7820224719 85% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 16.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.