The following is taken from a memo from advertising director of 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 public's lack of awareness that good 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."
The argument relies on a number of unsupported assumptions to decide on the fact that Super Screen should allocate a greater share of its budget next year to reaching the public through advertising. The arguments are unwarranted as they are not supported by evidences and facts in favour of them. Thus, they may be clearly refuted using stronger counter arguments and eventually they can fall apart.
Firstly, the argument states that, a recent report says that fewer people attended Super screen movies last year than in any other year. This argument does not consider the various categories the report may have taken into account to give out a conclusion. Did the report consider all the locations where Super Screen movies were on-screen or it was just some of the locations ? Was the source feeding information to the report genuine and reliable? Maybe it was the price of the movies which reduced the number of viewers. Maybe it was the lack of satisfying amenities given to the viewers by the associated movie theaters, which lead to the reduction. The report may have considered some group of areas where most viewers like romantic movies but the Super Screen Movies had been producing action movies for a while. Unless these questions and doubts are properly answered we cannot go by the conclusion given by the report. Thus, the argument fails to prove valid here.
There's another argument that takes into consideration the reviewers who have positively reviewed the movies by Super Screen. The argument states that there is an increase in the number of positive reviews by reviewers. The argument is simply considering the percentage of the reviews. The type of reviewers is not at all considered. Maybe all these reviewers, or a large part of them are action movie reviewers and they really liked the action sequences with the VFX used in the scenes, which did not go in harmony with the viewers considered in the report, who may like romantic movies. So, the type of reviews is big question mark here.
Thus, this argument also holds invalid, without proper evidences.
Lastly, the argument states that the contents of the reviews are not reaching people and they are not aware about the good quality movies. In this argument, the viewers maybe aware of all the movies, but they may have chosen not to go for one. The reason could be any of the above mentioned reasons, namely the genre, price, location of theater, facilities, etc. Thus, directly jumping to some conclusion with vague arguments is clearly a mistake.
Likewise, the assumptions in this argument renders vague and inconsistent in many ways to prove that the argument invalid. And unless these arguments are provided evidential support, they are susceptible to counter attacks and be proved invalid.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-01-18 | YO | 37 | view |
| 2020-01-03 | Daffodilia | 59 | view |
| 2019-12-27 | kook | 40 | view |
| 2019-12-11 | sefeliz | 55 | view |
| 2019-12-07 | farhadmoqimi | 58 | view |
- The following is taken from a memo from advertising director of 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 ot 55
- 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. 54
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 24 15
No. of Words: 463 350
No. of Characters: 2263 1500
No. of Different Words: 216 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.639 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.888 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.448 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 170 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 116 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 79 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 45 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 19.292 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.73 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.5 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.298 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.488 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.09 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 356, Rule ID: SOME_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'some'.
Suggestion: some
...en movies were on-screen or it was just some of the locations ? Was the source feeding info...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: There's
... argument fails to prove valid here. Theres another argument that takes into consid...
^^^^^^
Line 5, column 286, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...sidering the percentage of the reviews. The type of reviewers is not at all conside...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, lastly, likewise, may, really, so, thus, while
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 19.6327345309 112% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.9520958084 69% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 11.1786427146 116% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 13.6137724551 103% => OK
Pronoun: 28.0 28.8173652695 97% => OK
Preposition: 60.0 55.5748502994 108% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 16.3942115768 104% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2326.0 2260.96107784 103% => OK
No of words: 463.0 441.139720559 105% => OK
Chars per words: 5.02375809935 5.12650576532 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.63868890866 4.56307096286 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.52730334307 2.78398813304 91% => OK
Unique words: 225.0 204.123752495 110% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.48596112311 0.468620217663 104% => OK
syllable_count: 728.1 705.55239521 103% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 14.0 8.76447105788 160% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 25.0 19.7664670659 126% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 22.8473053892 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 46.4855418383 57.8364921388 80% => OK
Chars per sentence: 93.04 119.503703932 78% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.52 23.324526521 79% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.92 5.70786347227 51% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.20758483034 122% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 6.88822355289 160% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.67664670659 86% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.166891793545 0.218282227539 76% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0490130589908 0.0743258471296 66% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0821800511688 0.0701772020484 117% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0689250637123 0.128457276422 54% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0955821535721 0.0628817314937 152% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.5 14.3799401198 80% => 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: 11.84 12.5979740519 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.18 8.32208582834 98% => OK
difficult_words: 107.0 98.500998004 109% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.1389221557 83% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => 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.