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 last year. Clearly, the contents of these reviews are not reaching enough 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 qualities are available. Super Screen should, therefore, allocate a greater share of its budget next year to reaching the public through advertising.
The argument is filled with a lot of loopholes that are not taken care of. The fact that less number of people attended the Super Screen-produced movies is ridiculously compensated by stating that the percentage of positive reviews has increased during the last year. Hence the advertising director of the Super Screen Movie Production company concluded that the problem lies in the advertisement of its movies and the prospective viewers should be made aware of the good reviews. To conclude that the problem lies in the lack of awareness of people and not in the quality of the movies is abrupt and is not quite supported by evident facts and data.
What happens when a reputed movie production company begins to lose good content and further deteriorates the quality of its movies? At first, people would trust the company to come up with something better the next time and if the next movies are even worse, the public starts losing interest. Then, the only people consistent in watching the movies would be those who have a soft corner for this particular movie production company. No matter how bad the movie proves to be, the only people watching the movie are die-hard fans of the movie production company and hence their reviews are always positive. As less number of people are watching the movies of this movie production company, the percentage of positive reviews increases drastically. Most of the public is disinterested about giving back a review as they don't seem to care about it. The assertion the argument makes that the percentage of positive reviews has increased and hence the company should further invest in such movies proves to be an absolutely absurd and farce point.
A thorough investigation and evaluation should be done before jumping at a conclusion. Analyzing the quality of the movie would re-assure that any flaw found in the movie is not repeated again. This assessment will not only solve the problem but enables the advertising director to reach to the core of the problem. Further, where did the positive reviews come from? Did the reviews come from highly reputed critics or rather from diehard fans? If these two questions are answered, the assertion made in the argument will become a bit more concrete. Moreover, a percentage is not an accurate measure of judging as the actual number of people who liked the movie provides a better insight as to what the condition is.
The argument lacks depth and should be reinforced by addressing the points elaborated above in order to strengthen it. By addressing the questions enumerated above, the conclusion of the argument becomes much more reasonable and the situation can be taken care of by the professional authorities. Without answering these questions, it is next to impossible to figure out the root cause of such a crisis. In a nutshell, figuring out the real cause of the problem is only possible by reinforcing the current argument with more data and facts. Otherwise, landing at such a conclusion without thorough evidence is absurd
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-12-07 | Venkateshwar | 50 | view |
| 2019-11-25 | Venkateshwar | 23 | view |
| 2019-11-25 | Smrithi B R | 33 | view |
| 2019-11-09 | sampath srini | 50 | view |
| 2019-11-01 | harshalg007 | 42 | view |
- As people rely more and more on technology to solve problems, the ability of humans to think for themselves will surely deteriorate 50
- Understanding the past is of little use to those in current positions of leadership. 58
- As people rely more and more on technology to solve problems, the ability of humans to think for themselves will surely deteriorate. 75
- skateboard users within the central plaza have caused a decrease in the sales of the stores in the plaza. a lot of littering is also observed. hence the city should prohibit skateboarding inside the plaza. 83
- A nation should require all of its students to study the same national curriculum until they enter college 66
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: ??? out of 6
Category: Poor Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 23 15
No. of Words: 509 350
No. of Characters: 2487 1500
No. of Different Words: 232 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.75 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.886 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.661 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 185 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 134 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 90 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 58 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.13 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.219 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.348 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.298 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.473 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.098 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 269, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Hence,
...ews has increased during the last year. Hence the advertising director of the Super S...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 820, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
...sted about giving back a review as they dont seem to care about it. The assertion th...
^^^^
Line 9, column 179, Rule ID: REPEAT_AGAIN[1]
Message: Use simply 'repeated'.
Suggestion: repeated
...that any flaw found in the movie is not repeated again. This assessment will not only solve th...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, hence, if, moreover, so, then, as to
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 24.0 19.6327345309 122% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.9520958084 77% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 11.1786427146 134% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 20.0 28.8173652695 69% => OK
Preposition: 72.0 55.5748502994 130% => OK
Nominalization: 20.0 16.3942115768 122% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2539.0 2260.96107784 112% => OK
No of words: 508.0 441.139720559 115% => OK
Chars per words: 4.99803149606 5.12650576532 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.74751043592 4.56307096286 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.69670598498 2.78398813304 97% => OK
Unique words: 233.0 204.123752495 114% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.458661417323 0.468620217663 98% => OK
syllable_count: 805.5 705.55239521 114% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 4.96107784431 40% => OK
Article: 12.0 8.76447105788 137% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 19.7664670659 116% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 43.3313169033 57.8364921388 75% => OK
Chars per sentence: 110.391304348 119.503703932 92% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.0869565217 23.324526521 95% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.08695652174 5.70786347227 37% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 6.88822355289 145% => 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: 0.324652667885 0.218282227539 149% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0940585239622 0.0743258471296 127% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.102745381815 0.0701772020484 146% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.192210137447 0.128457276422 150% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.123472928788 0.0628817314937 196% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.2 14.3799401198 92% => Automated_readability_index is low.
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: 11.72 12.5979740519 93% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.02 8.32208582834 96% => OK
difficult_words: 106.0 98.500998004 108% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 12.3882235529 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => 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.