According to a recent report by 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 content of these reviews is not reaching enough of our prospective viewers. Thus, the problem lies not in 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 quantity of its budget next year to reaching the public through advertising.
In the argument above, the advertising director, in a memo, recommends that Super Screen, a movie production company, should allocate a greater share of the budget next year to reaching the public through advertising. In claiming that the advertising director provides evidence that during the past year, despite positive reviews from critics of their movies, fewer people attended Super Screen-produced movies. Thus, he avers that problems are not with their movie quality, rather it is with public awareness. Though the argument is appealing, meticulous scrutiny of his argument reveals that the argument depends on some gratuitous assumptions, which further raise three questions.
Firstly, will the quality of their movies remain the same in the next year? Because the author assumes it so. But in assuming that he did not provide any evidence to bolster his assumption. It may be the case that the quality of their movies will be degraded in the next year. Perhaps, their movie quality is still poor. If it is the case, then the advertising director's argument will not hold water.
Secondly, are there any competing movie production companies in the town whose movie quality impresses the people? The author, in his argument, did not give any facts which could answer the question above. It is probable that there are some movie production companies that people like the most. Perhaps, their movie quality is far better than the Super Screen. If it is the case, then despite proper advertisements, their movies will not be likable to the public. It further reveals that the author's argument will fall apart.
Thirdly, is the taste of reviewers the same as that of the public? It is possible that the taste regarding movies of reviewers is different from that of the public. Perhaps, the public likes action movies whereas the company is making comedy movies that are likable to reviewers. If it is the case, then the author's argument will not be valid.
In conclusion, one, in evaluating the argument, needs to provide answers to these questions explained above. Otherwise, It would not be wise to take the author's recommendation.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-07-25 | rubelmonir | 16 | view |
| 2023-07-25 | rubelmonir | 60 | view |
| 2023-07-23 | Mizanur_Rahman | 50 | view |
| 2023-02-14 | tedyang777 | 60 | view |
| 2022-11-13 | barath002 | 58 | view |
- As people rely more and more on technology to solve problems the ability of humans to think for themselves will surely deteriorate Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take In 75
- Economic impact of covid 19 The other side of the coin 67
- Many of the world s lesser known languages are being lost as fewer and fewer people speak them The governments of countries in which these languages are spoken should act to prevent such languages from becoming extinct 75
- Some people believe that government funding of the arts is necessary to ensure that the arts can flourish and be available to all people Others believe that government funding of the arts threatens the integrity of the arts 50
- Governments must ensure that their major cities receive the financial support they need in order to thrive because it is primarily in cities that a nation s cultural traditions are preserved and generated 50
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 4 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 3 2
No. of Sentences: 22 15
No. of Words: 350 350
No. of Characters: 1737 1500
No. of Different Words: 150 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.325 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.963 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.54 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 129 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 96 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 63 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 33 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 15.909 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.112 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.636 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.322 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.515 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.07 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 493, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...the public. It further reveals that the authors argument will fall apart. Thirdly, i...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 186, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'likes'' or 'like's'?
Suggestion: likes'; like's
...that of the public. Perhaps, the public likes action movies whereas the company is ma...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 309, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
... reviewers. If it is the case, then the authors argument will not be valid. In concl...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 154, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...rwise, It would not be wise to take the authors recommendation.
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, firstly, if, may, regarding, second, secondly, so, still, then, third, thirdly, thus, whereas, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 19.6327345309 107% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.9520958084 77% => OK
Conjunction : 1.0 11.1786427146 9% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 17.0 13.6137724551 125% => OK
Pronoun: 37.0 28.8173652695 128% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 41.0 55.5748502994 74% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 16.3942115768 104% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1798.0 2260.96107784 80% => OK
No of words: 350.0 441.139720559 79% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.13714285714 5.12650576532 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.32530772707 4.56307096286 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.64092748086 2.78398813304 95% => OK
Unique words: 166.0 204.123752495 81% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.474285714286 0.468620217663 101% => OK
syllable_count: 551.7 705.55239521 78% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 4.96107784431 181% => OK
Article: 4.0 8.76447105788 46% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.22255489022 166% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 19.7664670659 111% => OK
Sentence length: 15.0 22.8473053892 66% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 44.5542662899 57.8364921388 77% => OK
Chars per sentence: 81.7272727273 119.503703932 68% => OK
Words per sentence: 15.9090909091 23.324526521 68% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.45454545455 5.70786347227 96% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.20758483034 61% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 6.88822355289 160% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.67664670659 128% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.285904997735 0.218282227539 131% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0879305635027 0.0743258471296 118% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0861902289458 0.0701772020484 123% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.155474717153 0.128457276422 121% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0895409817804 0.0628817314937 142% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.7 14.3799401198 74% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 56.25 48.3550499002 116% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 12.197005988 75% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.24 12.5979740519 97% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.08 8.32208582834 97% => OK
difficult_words: 82.0 98.500998004 83% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 12.3882235529 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.0 11.1389221557 72% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.9071856287 67% => The average readability is low. Need to imporve the language.
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.