"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 argument of the author is that Super Screen -produced movies saw a drop in viewers simply due to the lack of people awareness amongst the public than the content of the movies being shown and its quality. Stated in this way, the argument fails to mention key factors only on the basis of which these claims could be evaluated. Furthermore, the author also takes a leap of faith in his claims and fails to provide any substantative proof that could support his viewpoint. Hence, the claim is raft with fallacies and in unconvincing.
First, the author states that fewer people attended Super Screen-produced movies than any other year yet the number of positive reviews garnered has been more. This claim is supposedly based on a report from the marketing department. However, key factors regarding the arrival of conclusion from the marketing team has not been provided and in turn, the basis on which this report was made is unclear. To illustrate, if only 30 people had watch a movie and 15 of them gave out positive feedback, this can be accounted as more postivie review percent than with 50 people watching movies and 15 of them providing positive reviews. Essentialy, what is the ratio of the people who gave positive reviews to the total people who watched the movies? Also, how were the reviews deemed to be postive ones?. Clearly, these are crucial questions that need answering. Without these important factors, the authors claims cannot be justified.
Second, the author goes on to say that on the basis of the marketing team's report, the contents of the movies do not have any problems rather the public weren't aware of the quality movies that had come out. This argument is raft with unsubstantiated fallacies for there is no garuntee that the movies that came out from this production company were of high quality. Furthermore, the movies that came out could have appealed to only one articular sect of the viewing audience. To provide some background, a movie such as Toy Story would appeal more to children than adults and hence, the viewers could have been less. Without any information on the genre of movies that came out and its pallatibility to the audience, one cannot agree with the arguments of the author.
Third, the claim that a greater share of the budget must be allocated to advertising is based on unproved conclusions. There is no proof of an indication of an increase in the number of people who would come to watch the movies of this production company if advertising were to be taken up more vigorously. How many people had known of the movies yet not come ? How can the lack of people be connected to lack of publicity without any proof or survey ? Crucial questions such as these require answers since without them, the author's claims stand to be debatable.
In conclusion, the author's claims are unsubtantiated and fails to answer key questions. Only if these key factors are answeed can the claims be evaluated. Until then, the arguments stands to be debatable and unconvincing.
- A nation should require all its students to study the same national curriculum until they enter college 66
- "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 a 42
- Claim: Even though young people often receive the advice to “follow your dreams,” more emphasis should be placed on picking worthy goals.Reason: Many people’s dreams are inherently selfish. 62
- Argument Topic: "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 33
- 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. 58
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Sentence: Furthermore, the author also takes a leap of faith in his claims and fails to provide any substantative proof that could support his viewpoint.
Error: substantative Suggestion: No alternate word
Sentence: To illustrate, if only 30 people had watch a movie and 15 of them gave out positive feedback, this can be accounted as more postivie review percent than with 50 people watching movies and 15 of them providing positive reviews.
Error: postivie Suggestion: positive
Sentence: Also, how were the reviews deemed to be postive ones?.
Error: postive Suggestion: positive
Sentence: Without any information on the genre of movies that came out and its pallatibility to the audience, one cannot agree with the arguments of the author.
Error: pallatibility Suggestion: No alternate word
Sentence: In conclusion, the author's claims are unsubtantiated and fails to answer key questions.
Error: unsubtantiated Suggestion: unsubstantiated
Sentence: Only if these key factors are answeed can the claims be evaluated.
Error: answeed Suggestion: answered
----------------------
flaws:
the arguments are not on the right track. read the topic carefully.
----------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 2.5 out of 6
Category: Poor Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 6 2
No. of Sentences: 25 15
No. of Words: 518 350
No. of Characters: 2453 1500
No. of Different Words: 225 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.771 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.736 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.514 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 171 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 115 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 75 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 50 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.72 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.763 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.6 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.292 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.483 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.092 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 440, Rule ID: HAD_VBP[1]
Message: Possible agreement error -- use past participle here: 'watched'.
Suggestion: watched
...r. To illustrate, if only 30 people had watch a movie and 15 of them gave out positiv...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 154, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: weren't
...not have any problems rather the public werent aware of the quality movies that had co...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, furthermore, hence, however, if, regarding, second, so, then, third, as to, in conclusion, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 30.0 19.6327345309 153% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.9520958084 100% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 11.1786427146 116% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 13.6137724551 118% => OK
Pronoun: 30.0 28.8173652695 104% => OK
Preposition: 77.0 55.5748502994 139% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 16.3942115768 67% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2515.0 2260.96107784 111% => OK
No of words: 517.0 441.139720559 117% => OK
Chars per words: 4.86460348162 5.12650576532 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.76839952204 4.56307096286 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.62059531345 2.78398813304 94% => OK
Unique words: 227.0 204.123752495 111% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.439071566731 0.468620217663 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 768.6 705.55239521 109% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 16.0 8.76447105788 183% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 25.0 19.7664670659 126% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 51.6825076791 57.8364921388 89% => OK
Chars per sentence: 100.6 119.503703932 84% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.68 23.324526521 89% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.44 5.70786347227 78% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.88822355289 131% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.67664670659 171% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.203591892368 0.218282227539 93% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0581873930797 0.0743258471296 78% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0683567579283 0.0701772020484 97% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.107904720082 0.128457276422 84% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0716938452594 0.0628817314937 114% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.8 14.3799401198 82% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 59.64 48.3550499002 123% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 12.197005988 81% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.91 12.5979740519 87% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.99 8.32208582834 96% => OK
difficult_words: 110.0 98.500998004 112% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.9071856287 84% => 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.