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.
The advertising director of the Super Screen Movie Production Company, in his memo concludes that the reason for fewer attendance to the movies that the company has produced lies in the public's lack of awareness about the good quality movies that they are producing and not with the quality of the said movies. He thus recommends that allcating a greater share of the company's budget in advertising would fix the problem and gain the audience's attention back. He has based his argument on the evidence stating that even though the percentage of positive reviews for some of the movies has increased in the past year, fewer people attended these movies last year than any other previous year. However, his argument and the following recommendation is based on a few assumptions and three vital questions will be needed to answer in order to correctly evaluate them.
Firstly, are the movie reviewers whose opinion is being taken into consideration can be categorized as reputable and reliable source of reviews? In other words, are they capable of expressing the general public opinion on the movie through their reviews and not just their personal point of view? For example, it can be possible that the majority of reviewers are fledgelings in this field and not mature enough yet to be able to express the wide public opinion. It is also possible that these reviewers are letting emotions or personal prejudice bias their review. If either of the above is true, then it would belie the public reaction of the movie and thus making the director's argument that the quality of movies is not an issue a wak one.
Further, it is mentioned that these reviews are positive for "specific" Super Screen movies. A question that needs to be answered arises that what percentage of all the movies does these specific movies make up? And wether these specific movies produced by the company correctly represents the overall quality of all the movies produced by them? For instance, it is possible that only four out of fifteen various movies produced by the company in the last year was reviewed positively. If this happens to be true, it would not represent the overall quality of all the movies and the author's argument would not hold water.
Lastly, even if we consider that the author's argument of movies not reaching out to the public is a correct one, it is needed to be found out that wether the budget already allocated to advertising is being used properly and efficiently? It is possible that the budget as it is now is already sufficient for advertising but is instead not utilized correctly. If this happens to be true, director's recommendation for increasing the budget would not be an efficient one.
Thus to conclude, the argument and the recommendation as it stands right now, is a weak one. The above questions would be required to answer, perhaps in the form of detailed reports reflecting true information in order to evaluate the director's recommendation properly.
| 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 |
- 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 66
- production of matchsticks 11
- An ailing patient should have easy access to his or her doctor s record of treating similarly afflicted patients Through gaining such access the ailing patient may better determine whether the doctor is competent to treat that medical condition Write a re 50
- Marco polo 73
- The following appeared as part of a petition sent to residents of Youngtown by an environmental protection group The Smith Corporation should not be permitted to develop the land that is now part of the Youngtown Wildlife Preserve This sanctuary is essent 78
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 3 2
No. of Sentences: 20 15
No. of Words: 503 350
No. of Characters: 2438 1500
No. of Different Words: 218 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.736 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.847 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.644 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 179 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 137 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 97 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 51 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 25.15 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.878 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.65 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.321 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.321 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.154 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 435, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'audiences'' or 'audience's'?
Suggestion: audiences'; audience's
...sing would fix the problem and gain the audiences attention back. He has based his argume...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 567, Rule ID: SOME_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'some'.
Suggestion: some
... the percentage of positive reviews for some of the movies has increased in the past year, ...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 196, Rule ID: GENERAL_XX[1]
Message: Use simply 'public'.
Suggestion: public
...rds, are they capable of expressing the general public opinion on the movie through their revi...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 671, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'directors'' or 'director's'?
Suggestion: directors'; director's
...action of the movie and thus making the directors argument that the quality of movies is ...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 593, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...erall quality of all the movies and the authors argument would not hold water. Lastly,...
^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 38, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
.... Lastly, even if we consider that the authors argument of movies not reaching out to ...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
... budget would not be an efficient one. Thus to conclude, the argument and the recom...
^^^^
Line 5, column 235, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'directors'' or 'director's'?
Suggestion: directors'; director's
...ue information in order to evaluate the directors recommendation properly.
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, however, if, lastly, so, then, thus, for example, for instance, in other words
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 34.0 19.6327345309 173% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.9520958084 69% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 11.1786427146 134% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 13.6137724551 118% => OK
Pronoun: 46.0 28.8173652695 160% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 59.0 55.5748502994 106% => OK
Nominalization: 19.0 16.3942115768 116% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2485.0 2260.96107784 110% => OK
No of words: 503.0 441.139720559 114% => OK
Chars per words: 4.94035785288 5.12650576532 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.73578520332 4.56307096286 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.73375528196 2.78398813304 98% => OK
Unique words: 222.0 204.123752495 109% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.441351888668 0.468620217663 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 790.2 705.55239521 112% => 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: 4.0 8.76447105788 46% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 26.0 22.8473053892 114% => OK
Sentence length SD: 53.0384797332 57.8364921388 92% => OK
Chars per sentence: 130.789473684 119.503703932 109% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.4736842105 23.324526521 114% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.52631578947 5.70786347227 97% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 8.0 5.25449101796 152% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.20758483034 122% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.88822355289 73% => 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: 0.213502532008 0.218282227539 98% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0700695841671 0.0743258471296 94% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0746464010335 0.0701772020484 106% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.120108589944 0.128457276422 94% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0993116273851 0.0628817314937 158% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.1 14.3799401198 105% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 45.09 48.3550499002 93% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 12.197005988 110% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.67 12.5979740519 93% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.0 8.32208582834 96% => OK
difficult_words: 98.0 98.500998004 99% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 18.0 12.3882235529 145% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 11.1389221557 111% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4 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.