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.
In the memo, the advertising director of Super Screen Movie Production Company avers that the company should appropriate a larger chunk of its next years budget into advertising. He bases this recommendation on the report of an increase in the percentage of positive reviews received by the company in the past year. However, while the conclusion may seem to hold water, it rests on several unfounded assumptions that, if not substantiated, dramatically weaken the persuasiveness and cogency of the argument. Thus, in order to fully examine the recommendation. the following three questions must be addressed.
First of all, was the recent report representative of people who attended the movies? That is, can the result of report be proven as germane to the author's conclusion? Perhaps the majority of people who attended the movies did not like it and were too shy to make their comments known publicly. It is also possible that the report is itself a fabrication by the marketing department. The survey could have been conducted by only using the department's staff as its contributors in a bid to increase the finances allocated to them rather than improve the overall visibility of the organization. If any of these cases proves true, the director's argument will be significantly weakened.
Secondly, what if there are other causes to the decline in attendance of the movies? Perhaps the content of the movies are not relevant to potential viewers. The populace may be very aware of the shows and still choose not to attend because they are not interested in them. It is also possible that the cost of seeing a Super Screen movie is just too high for a humble working class person to even consider. In the scenario where these prove likely, the author's argument loses its hold.
Finally, even if all the above are not true and more money is invested in advertising, is it given that more viewers will come see a movie? It may be possible that there is an alternative movie company nearby that has attracted and retained many viewers. An increase in visibility may not do much for Share Screen company. It is also possible that the theatres the company sells to are not situated in popular regions around that state. Viewers will be less likely to spend so much time going to an unknown venue even for a well-advertised movie. Provided any of these scenarios has merit, the director's argument is left significantly hampered.
In conclusion, albeit the directors contention may have some merit as regards a possible increase in the advertising budget, more data (preferably in the form of a parametric research study) will be required for a firm conclusion to be reached. Provided the author is able to answer the three questions posed above, then, it will be possible to fully evaluate the argument.
| 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 |
- Commuters complain that increased rush hour traffic on Blue Highway between the suburbs and the city center has doubled their commuting time The favored proposal of the motorists lobby is to widen the highway adding an additional lane of traffic Opponents 65
- The following is a memorandum from the business manager of a television station Over the past year our late night news program has devoted increased time to national news and less time to weather and local news During this period most of the complaints re 66
- 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
- The following appeared in a letter from the owner of the Sunnyside Towers apartment building to its manager One month ago all the showerheads on the first five floors of Sunnyside Towers were modified to restrict the water flow to approximately one third 69
- 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 Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree wi 83
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 14 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 7 2
No. of Sentences: 23 15
No. of Words: 473 350
No. of Characters: 2283 1500
No. of Different Words: 241 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.664 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.827 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.738 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 157 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 121 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 88 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 49 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.565 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.288 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.652 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.271 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.482 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.066 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 563, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: The
...er to fully examine the recommendation. the following three questions must be addre...
^^^
Line 3, column 149, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...t of report be proven as germane to the authors conclusion? Perhaps the majority of peo...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 633, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'directors'' or 'director's'?
Suggestion: directors'; director's
... If any of these cases proves true, the directors argument will be significantly weakened...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 454, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
... scenario where these prove likely, the authors argument loses its hold. Finally, ev...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 594, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'directors'' or 'director's'?
Suggestion: directors'; director's
...d any of these scenarios has merit, the directors argument is left significantly hampered...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 27, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'directors'' or 'director's'?
Suggestion: directors'; director's
... hampered. In conclusion, albeit the directors contention may have some merit as regar...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, still, then, thus, well, while, as regards, in conclusion, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 28.0 19.6327345309 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.9520958084 108% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 11.1786427146 45% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 13.0 13.6137724551 95% => OK
Pronoun: 31.0 28.8173652695 108% => OK
Preposition: 58.0 55.5748502994 104% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 16.3942115768 79% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2340.0 2260.96107784 103% => OK
No of words: 473.0 441.139720559 107% => OK
Chars per words: 4.94714587738 5.12650576532 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.66353547975 4.56307096286 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.81322987759 2.78398813304 101% => OK
Unique words: 251.0 204.123752495 123% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.530655391121 0.468620217663 113% => OK
syllable_count: 756.9 705.55239521 107% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 4.96107784431 161% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.70958083832 221% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 19.7664670659 121% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 48.0025860125 57.8364921388 83% => OK
Chars per sentence: 97.5 119.503703932 82% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.7083333333 23.324526521 84% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.75 5.70786347227 101% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 5.25449101796 114% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.67664670659 150% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.208538443327 0.218282227539 96% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0563251428053 0.0743258471296 76% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0597204951502 0.0701772020484 85% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.115189685975 0.128457276422 90% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0594473941257 0.0628817314937 95% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.7 14.3799401198 81% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 48.3550499002 108% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.197005988 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.43 12.5979740519 91% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.35 8.32208582834 100% => OK
difficult_words: 113.0 98.500998004 115% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 12.3882235529 69% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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.