The author of the memo argues that the movie production company should allocate more money towards advertising because the decline of movie watches is due to the public not being aware of the available movies. At first glance, the argument may seem convincing. However, upon close scrutiny, the author makes several logical errors which severely hinders its persuasiveness.
First, the author argues that the movies must be in good quality because the percentage of positive reviews from movie reviewers have increased. While it is plausible that the movie quality is great, the author fails to acknowledge that regular public may have different standards of quality compared to a professional movie reviewer. In this regard, it would be much convincing had the author provided the reviews of regular public as data.
In addition, the author fails to consider the possibility that the number of people that watched movies in the past year has declined. The author bases his argument on the assumption that movie viewers are not watching movies because the absolute number of viewers have decreased. However, if the overall number of people that watch movies have declined within the past year, it may not be true that Super Screen-produced movies are less popular. In fact, it may be even possible that Super Screen-produced movies have gone up in market share.
Finally, the assumption that the public is not aware of the movies may be false. The author states that the public are not watching the production’s movies because they are not aware of the positive reviews. However, the public may already be aware of the reviews, but they are not watching for another reason. For example, more enticing movies may have been in the theaters the same time as the productions movies, leading to the public watching other movies even after being aware of the production movie’s positive reviews. To strengthen this assumption, there should be some sort of evidence or statistic relating the public’s awareness and movie watches.
In conclusion, the argument that the movie production company should increase their public advertising budget is flawed. For it to be stronger, the author should provide more concrete evidence that the general public are less aware of the production’s movies, statistics showing previous years’ market share including the total number of movie viewers, and the regular publics movie reviews. Without these evidences to prove the author’s claim, the increase in public advertise budget may be ineffectual.
In the past one year, the…
In the past one year, the number of people who watched movies produced by Super Screen-produced movies have decreased. The author attributes this detoriation in number to lack of awareness of good movies and increase in budget for more marketing is decided, I stongly disagree with this because of the below mentioned reasons.
The primary reason for disagreement is author's assumption of increase in postive reviews by movie reviewers is attributed to production of good movies. This assumption may not be right since, fewer people watched movies in the year, it is probable that the people who watched movies in the past year are watching because they might be crazy fans of this production house and irrespective of the quality of movies, they tend to like these because of the biased liking towards the production house. For example, Marvel studios have huge fan base, and people go crazy about Marvel movies. The movie "Thor Ragnarok" is a low quality movie with improper storyline and a bad screenplay. Still, many people gave good reviews because of their blind liking towards the Marvel but the movie didn't earn much. Also, if the movie is actualy good, mouth pubilicity would have attracted huge crowd to movie theatres. From this, we can say increase in good reviews doesn't imply good movies.
Another reason for reduction in people watching the movies might be because of the new trend of people started prefering OTT content more than watching movies. OTT is not only providing great content, it is also cheap and convenient. There might be a possibility that not just this production house movies, but for all other movies people are coming less to theatres. This can judged properly only when we have sufficient data about other prodcution house' movies. Without proper analysis of complete industry, it's challenging to judge.
Even if we agree with author on the thing that reduction in numbers is due to bad accessability of movie reviews to people, allocating a greater share of budget to advertising should not be done. Greater increase in budget for marketing implies greater reduction of budget for making movies which results in diminshing the quality of movie making to a great extent which in turn push away people more than pulling to theatres.
Increase in advertising budget will for sure aid in reaching out to more audience, but it is not clear from the data provided that advertising is the main reason for reduction in people arriving to theatres and above points to be clarified to state if it is a right decision.
In the past one year, the…
In the past one year, the number of people who watched movies produced by Super Screen-produced movies have decreased. The author attributes this detoriation in number to lack of awareness of good movies and increase in budget for more marketing is decided, I stongly disagree with this because of the below mentioned reasons.
The primary reason for disagreement is author's assumption of increase in postive reviews by movie reviewers is attributed to production of good movies. This assumption may not be right since, fewer people watched movies in the year, it is probable that the people who watched movies in the past year are watching because they might be crazy fans of this production house and irrespective of the quality of movies, they tend to like these because of the biased liking towards the production house. For example, Marvel studios have huge fan base, and people go crazy about Marvel movies. The movie "Thor Ragnarok" is a low quality movie with improper storyline and a bad screenplay. Still, many people gave good reviews because of their blind liking towards the Marvel but the movie didn't earn much. Also, if the movie is actualy good, mouth pubilicity would have attracted huge crowd to movie theatres. From this, we can say increase in good reviews doesn't imply good movies.
Another reason for reduction in people watching the movies might be because of the new trend of people started prefering OTT content more than watching movies. OTT is not only providing great content, it is also cheap and convenient. There might be a possibility that not just this production house movies, but for all other movies people are coming less to theatres. This can judged properly only when we have sufficient data about other prodcution house' movies. Without proper analysis of complete industry, it's challenging to judge.
Even if we agree with author on the thing that reduction in numbers is due to bad accessability of movie reviews to people, allocating a greater share of budget to advertising should not be done. Greater increase in budget for marketing implies greater reduction of budget for making movies which results in diminshing the quality of movie making to a great extent which in turn push away people more than pulling to theatres.
Increase in advertising budget will for sure aid in reaching out to more audience, but it is not clear from the data provided that advertising is the main reason for reduction in people arriving to theatres and above points to be clarified to state if it is a right decision.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 276, Rule ID: CLOSE_SCRUTINY[1]
Message: Use simply 'scrutiny'.
Suggestion: scrutiny
...ment may seem convincing. However, upon close scrutiny, the author makes several logical error...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 203, Rule ID: GENERAL_XX[1]
Message: Use simply 'public'.
Suggestion: public
...provide more concrete evidence that the general public are less aware of the production’s movi...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 370, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'publics'' or 'public's'?
Suggestion: publics'; public's
...umber of movie viewers, and the regular publics movie reviews. Without these evidences ...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, however, if, may, so, then, while, for example, in addition, in conclusion, in fact, sort of
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 23.0 19.6327345309 117% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.9520958084 108% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 11.1786427146 36% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 15.0 13.6137724551 110% => OK
Pronoun: 27.0 28.8173652695 94% => OK
Preposition: 43.0 55.5748502994 77% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 16.3942115768 73% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2139.0 2260.96107784 95% => OK
No of words: 406.0 441.139720559 92% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.2684729064 5.12650576532 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.48881294772 4.56307096286 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.6670191402 2.78398813304 96% => OK
Unique words: 183.0 204.123752495 90% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.450738916256 0.468620217663 96% => OK
syllable_count: 668.7 705.55239521 95% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 13.0 8.76447105788 148% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 8.0 4.22255489022 189% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 19.7664670659 91% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 52.7177729067 57.8364921388 91% => OK
Chars per sentence: 118.833333333 119.503703932 99% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.5555555556 23.324526521 97% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.27777777778 5.70786347227 110% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.20758483034 134% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.88822355289 73% => 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: 0.214070768789 0.218282227539 98% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0890962952794 0.0743258471296 120% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0656964504519 0.0701772020484 94% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.138455615179 0.128457276422 108% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0481331726944 0.0628817314937 77% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.7 14.3799401198 102% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 48.3550499002 102% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.58 12.5979740519 108% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.42 8.32208582834 101% => OK
difficult_words: 95.0 98.500998004 96% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => 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.