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.”
The author of this statement claims that Super Screen Movie Production Company should spend more money on advertising in order to increase the number of people attending Super Screen-produced movies, reversing the decline in the previous year. They make this argument based on the claim that an increase in positive reviews demonstrates that it is not the quality of the movies that is the problem, but the population's awareness of them. As it stands, this argument makes a number of unwarranted claims, and is thus weak. In order to strengthen the argument, the author must provide answers to the following three questions: the representativeness of the reviews and whether they are reflective of the population more broadly, any other potential reasons why the number of positive reviews would have increased, and whether advertising is would indeed cause an increase in the public's exposure to positive reviews.
Firstly, the author makes an inductive fallacy in attributing the views of the small sample of reviewers to the public as a whole; the author infers that "the problem lies not in the quality of [their] movies" by simply asserting that the number of positive reviews by movie viewers has increased in the past year without qualifying who those reviewers were and which movies they were referring to. It could be that these reviewers are an avid group of people that religiously watch Super Screen Movies and rate their quality, but that the majority of viewers do not enjoy the movies. In order for this to be compelling evidence, the author must answer the questions as to who the reviewers are and which movies they are watching so as to demonstrate that the reviewers are indeed representative of the general population's views of the movies.
Secondly, the author makes a causal fallacy in attributing an increasing number of positive reviews to a general increase in the approval ratings of its movies. Though this is not explicitly stated in the statement, it is the claim that the author's argument implicitly depends upon. There are a plethora of potential reasons as to why the number of positive reviews increased. For example, the social media page could have been more visible online or the company could have been offering discounts for reviews. Even if the reviews are representative of the general population, as in the point made above, the author must then make it clear how these reviews demonstrate that the population does indeed have a favourable view of its movies, rather than being more enthusiastic reviewers. They should compare their reviews with those of other movie production companies to examine whether there is a general increase in reviewing, as opposed to specific reviews for their movies. The author must answer the question as to what has caused an increase in the positive reviews for the specific movies that they refer to.
Lastly, the author makes the mistake of generalizing from reviews to advertising more broadly. They make the statement that the public are not seeing the reviews that are posted about the movies, but then make the unqualified assertion that the way to increase this is to spend more money on advertising. The causal link between increasing funds for advertising and increasing exposure to reviews is merely asserted by the author. The question that would need to be answered here is how the advertising money would be spent and, indeed, whether any money needs to be spent here at all. For example, it could be argued that these reviews would be better shared over social media, a medium that does not require any funding.
The author may indeed be correct in their claim that increasing money spent on advertising would increase the number of attendees of Super Screen-produced movies as a result of increased exposure to positive reviews. However, the argument that they have presented in favour of this claim is weak and unsubstantiated, making causal and inductive fallacies in its reasoning. In order to evaluate the recommendation in question, the author must provide evidence that determines that the reviews are representative of the views of the broader population, that there is a causal link between reviews and attendance, and that advertising would increase exposure to positive reviews.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-09-20 | awojinrin | 83 | view |
| 2023-08-13 | Nowshin Tabassum | 66 | view |
| 2023-08-01 | aryaman | 66 | view |
| 2022-09-14 | Ninajm181181 | 58 | view |
| 2022-09-09 | ashutoshT | 16 | view |
- Over the past year our late night news program has devoted increasingly more time to covering national news and less time to covering weather and local news During the same time period most of the complaints we received from viewers were concerned with th 58
- 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 ot 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
- A nation should require all of its students to study the same national curriculum until they enter college 50
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 408, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'populations'' or 'population's'?
Suggestion: populations'; population's
...the movies that is the problem, but the populations awareness of them. As it stands, this a...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 878, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'publics'' or 'public's'?
Suggestion: publics'; public's
...s would indeed cause an increase in the publics exposure to positive reviews. Firstl...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 741, Rule ID: SO_AS_TO[1]
Message: Use simply 'to'
Suggestion: to
... are and which movies they are watching so as to demonstrate that the reviewers are inde...
^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 242, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...the statement, it is the claim that the authors argument implicitly depends upon. There...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, firstly, however, if, lastly, may, second, secondly, so, then, thus, as to, for example, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 35.0 19.5258426966 179% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 20.0 12.4196629213 161% => OK
Conjunction : 16.0 14.8657303371 108% => OK
Relative clauses : 29.0 11.3162921348 256% => Less relative clauses wanted (maybe 'which' is over used).
Pronoun: 60.0 33.0505617978 182% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 92.0 58.6224719101 157% => OK
Nominalization: 22.0 12.9106741573 170% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3599.0 2235.4752809 161% => OK
No of words: 702.0 442.535393258 159% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.12678062678 5.05705443957 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 5.14735685561 4.55969084622 113% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.79840431534 2.79657885939 100% => OK
Unique words: 251.0 215.323595506 117% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.35754985755 0.4932671777 72% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 1129.5 704.065955056 160% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 6.24550561798 128% => OK
Article: 17.0 4.99550561798 340% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 5.0 3.10617977528 161% => OK
Conjunction: 6.0 1.77640449438 338% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 4.38483146067 91% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 20.2370786517 109% => OK
Sentence length: 31.0 23.0359550562 135% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 87.3779313818 60.3974514979 145% => OK
Chars per sentence: 163.590909091 118.986275619 137% => OK
Words per sentence: 31.9090909091 23.4991977007 136% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.09090909091 5.21951772744 98% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 7.80617977528 51% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 14.0 10.2758426966 136% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 5.13820224719 97% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.83258426966 62% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.127070899533 0.243740707755 52% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0484862594264 0.0831039109588 58% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0688460225388 0.0758088955206 91% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0888622596931 0.150359130593 59% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0433497173502 0.0667264976115 65% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 18.7 14.1392134831 132% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 40.01 48.8420337079 82% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.4 12.1743820225 126% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.07 12.1639044944 107% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.23 8.38706741573 98% => OK
difficult_words: 136.0 100.480337079 135% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 11.8971910112 118% => OK
gunning_fog: 14.4 11.2143820225 128% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.7820224719 119% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 30 minutes.
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.