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.
In the given argument, it is stated that Super Screen should spend more on advertising its content to reach a larger audience as its content is good and people are not aware of its content. This conclusion is based on the premise that Super Screen-produced movies received more number of positive reviews this year but the number of people who watched the movies has decreased. The argument has poor underlying assumptions that make the argument weak for three reasons.
Firstly, the argument does not provide any statistical data to corroborate the claim. To elaborate, we can consider a detailed graph report that gives us a region wise distribution of number of people watching and number of positive reviews received. This would have helped the Super Screen producers target the audience that has shown a dip in viewership. Furthermore, it may be possible that the observed trend is an intermittent one and such transient trends occur frequently in the business over a period of time. Hence, a detailed analysis and trend identification would have helped the argument to be more ironclad. Had the author provided such information, the argument would have been strengthened but based on the current dataset, the argument stands weak.
Secondly, the argument contains dubious comparisons and incomplete information that can be misleading and lead to incorrect conclusions. To illustrate the same, we can see that the argument states the percentage of positive reviews increased, but here it is not stated whether the number of positive reviews also increased, and if it did, then by how much. Evaluation of the argument would make more sense if the percentage increase or decrease was stated along with the population change as doing so would have provided a solid understanding of the direction in which the viewership is headed. It is possible that fewer people provided reviews but the overall consensus on the movies is negative. Thus, without such details, the argument holds no water.
Finally, it is also important to consider the argument reaches a conclusion that does test the feasibility of the proposition and links the outcome with a reason which is not deducible from the given facts. To throw some light on the same, the flagging viewership and increased positive reviews do not suggest that the audience is unaware of the content and the content is impeccable. It is possible that the audience is aware of the content, but because there is a boom in availability of pirated dvds, people prefer not to go to theatres and watch movies at home, for a much lesser expense. Hence the correlation-causation fallacy is clearly evident in the argument and thus weakens it to the core.
Although the author does make a good case by stating some observed trends/reasons for a decision that is proposed later in the argument, it is weakened by some unsound assumptions highlighted above. Had the author provided more details(perhaps in the form of a synoptic analysis), the argument would have been further substantiated. But as of now, based on the evaluation of the given set of information, the argument stands too weak to be true.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-07-25 | rubelmonir | 16 | view |
| 2023-07-25 | rubelmonir | 60 | view |
| 2023-07-23 | Mizanur_Rahman | 50 | view |
| 2023-02-14 | tedyang777 | 60 | view |
| 2022-11-13 | barath002 | 58 | view |
- Undergraduate students majoring in Business or in the Sciences should not be required to take any courses in the Humanities since those courses won t benefit their future careers Write a response to the prompt in which you discuss whether or not you agree 66
- People who make decisions based on emotion and justify those decisions with logic afterwards are poor decision makers Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the pos 73
- Although sound moral judgment is an important characteristic of an effective leader it is not as important as a leader s ability to maintain the respect of his or her peers Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree wi 66
- 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 66
- Understanding the past is of little use to those in current positions of leadership Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take In developing and s 73
Comments
e-rater score 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: 21 15
No. of Words: 520 350
No. of Characters: 2572 1500
No. of Different Words: 232 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.775 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.946 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.845 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 189 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 149 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 109 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 52 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 24.762 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.206 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.667 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.34 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.522 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.101 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 503, Rule ID: PERIOD_OF_TIME[1]
Message: Use simply 'period'.
Suggestion: period
...occur frequently in the business over a period of time. Hence, a detailed analysis and trend i...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 594, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Hence,
...ies at home, for a much lesser expense. Hence the correlation-causation fallacy is cl...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, firstly, furthermore, hence, if, may, second, secondly, so, then, thus
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 : 19.0 11.1786427146 170% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 13.6137724551 118% => OK
Pronoun: 31.0 28.8173652695 108% => OK
Preposition: 55.0 55.5748502994 99% => OK
Nominalization: 32.0 16.3942115768 195% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2633.0 2260.96107784 116% => OK
No of words: 519.0 441.139720559 118% => OK
Chars per words: 5.0732177264 5.12650576532 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.7730044521 4.56307096286 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.94230567624 2.78398813304 106% => OK
Unique words: 237.0 204.123752495 116% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.456647398844 0.468620217663 97% => OK
syllable_count: 828.0 705.55239521 117% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 4.96107784431 202% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.67365269461 239% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 19.7664670659 106% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 22.8473053892 105% => OK
Sentence length SD: 49.6917482211 57.8364921388 86% => OK
Chars per sentence: 125.380952381 119.503703932 105% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.7142857143 23.324526521 106% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.61904761905 5.70786347227 81% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 12.0 6.88822355289 174% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.67664670659 43% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.165008040574 0.218282227539 76% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0520570842609 0.0743258471296 70% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0826817213989 0.0701772020484 118% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0992433712827 0.128457276422 77% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0752781384287 0.0628817314937 120% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.8 14.3799401198 103% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 47.12 48.3550499002 97% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 12.197005988 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.42 12.5979740519 99% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.48 8.32208582834 102% => OK
difficult_words: 120.0 98.500998004 122% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.1389221557 104% => 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.