"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 recommends that increase budget on advertising is a solution to lose of the audience. However, to access the efficacy of this recommendation, some questions want answers.
Citing an annual report which shows decreased number of people attending movies produced by Super Screen but an increased percentage of positive reviews, the author claims that they are losing customers because customers are not aware of their good movie. However, the arguer fails to take into account of other possibility that leads to less audience. Is there other emerging company producing more attractive movies at the same time? Is the society undergoing an economic crisis that everyone strains to save their money instead of spending on watching movie? Are people favors to stay at home under the suggestion of social distancing due to an outbreak of a pandemic disease? The statics may be misinterpreted without providing more information.
The memo put forward the claim that increased percentage of positive reviews is indicators of their good movie quality. This may well be. But unless we know the hard numbers of the reviews, we cannot say that with any certainty. What if there are more positive reviews in other years but represent as smaller percentage because of a bigger amount of all reviews? Or, perhaps audiences who do not appreciate the movie just no longer want to post any review. The author fails to justifiably conclude that lack of public awareness, not the movie itself, is the cause of less audience.
While a concrete connection between decreased audience and public awareness is not effectively made, it seems too hasty to draw a sweeping conclusion that allocate funds to advertisement will improve the condition. Since movie is a fast-changing industry, does the company conduct a valid poll recently to know the trend of current customer's taste? Granted that raising public's attention is a good idea, is advertisement an efficient way for doing so? In order to decide this, a more thorough evaluation over the policy is required.
Consequently, the author needs to answer the above question to make the recommendation more valuable.
| 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 |
- We recommend that Grove College preserve its century old tradition of all female education rather than admit men into its programs It is true that a majority of faculty members voted in favor of coeducation arguing that it would encourage more students to 50
- The following appeared in a letter from a firm providing investment advice for a client Most homes in the northeastern United States where winters are typically cold have traditionally used oil as their major fuel for heating Last heating season that regi 59
- Critical judgment of work in any given field has little value unless it comes from someone who is an expert in that field 58
- According to an independent poll of 200 charitable organizations overall donations of money to nonprofit groups increased last year but educational institutions did not fare as well as other organizations Donations to international aid groups increased th 57
- 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 50
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 6 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 5 2
No. of Sentences: 19 15
No. of Words: 348 350
No. of Characters: 1771 1500
No. of Different Words: 209 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.319 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.089 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.778 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 136 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 103 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 73 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 44 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 18.316 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.664 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.526 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.268 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.498 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.035 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 371, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'publics'' or 'public's'?
Suggestion: publics'; public's
...t customers taste? Granted that raising publics attention is a good idea, is advertisem...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, consequently, however, if, may, so, well, while
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 19.6327345309 81% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 12.9520958084 31% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 11.1786427146 36% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 20.0 28.8173652695 69% => OK
Preposition: 47.0 55.5748502994 85% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 16.3942115768 98% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1817.0 2260.96107784 80% => OK
No of words: 348.0 441.139720559 79% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.22126436782 5.12650576532 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.31911543099 4.56307096286 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.84175934621 2.78398813304 102% => OK
Unique words: 211.0 204.123752495 103% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.60632183908 0.468620217663 129% => OK
syllable_count: 576.9 705.55239521 82% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 22.8473053892 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 49.8850201509 57.8364921388 86% => OK
Chars per sentence: 95.6315789474 119.503703932 80% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.3157894737 23.324526521 79% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.73684210526 5.70786347227 48% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 8.20758483034 146% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.88822355289 73% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.67664670659 43% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.241461864508 0.218282227539 111% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0590482786188 0.0743258471296 79% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0718596673224 0.0701772020484 102% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0960536079655 0.128457276422 75% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.104266821017 0.0628817314937 166% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.3 14.3799401198 86% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 44.75 48.3550499002 93% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.197005988 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.0 12.5979740519 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.75 8.32208582834 105% => OK
difficult_words: 93.0 98.500998004 94% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 12.3882235529 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.1389221557 83% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 70.83 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.25 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.