"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."
In the memo, the advertising director of the Super Screen Movie Production Company express his conclusion as a advertising director that Super Screen should allocate more budget to reach the public through advertising. However, while the conclusion drawn by the director might hold water, it rests on several unfounded assumptions, that if not substantiated dramatically weaken the persuasiveness of the argument. Thus, the following two questions must be addressed.
First, was the report of the marketing department conducted scientifically? It is possible that they conducted the study when there are less people in the movie theater due to various reasons. For instance, may be they conduct the study on office days or in the time when people prefer to watch movies in the home which will answer the fewer attendance of people. The advertising director does not give any reliable information about the type of the study, marketing deparment conducted whether they simply count the number of people attend in the movies whether it is produced by Super Screen or only for Super Screen- whether they asked the reason for the turnover of people or is it simply the current scenario of any movie theater. The ponit is, the director did not give any representative, reliable and cogent set of data, which weaken the director position in the argument.
Secondly, what percent of positive reviews increased for the movie? Whether this percentage is significant? Or who are the people that give positive reviews. Once again, the author only giving the superficial data with no reliability. The author assumes that the reason people do not go to watch movie in the theater beacause there are less advertise of the movie reviews. It is possible that people read the reviews but do not go to watch them beacause the movies are not in their taste pallets. In this case, the movies good quality does not ensure the great number of people will watch it.
Furthermore, the author need to answer the questions to hold his argument.
| 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 |
- 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 actu 45
- The following appeared in a memorandum from the planning department of an electric power company Several recent surveys indicate that home owners are increasingly eager to conserve energy At the same time manufacturers are now marketing many home applianc 50
- A nation should require all of its students to study the same national curriculum until they enter college 33
- The following appeared in the summary of a study on headaches suffered by the residents of Mentia Salicylates are members of the same chemical family as aspirin a medicine used to treat headaches Although many foods are naturally rich in salicylates for t 43
- The following is a memorandum from the business manager of a television station Over the past year our late night news program has devoted increased time to national news and less time to weather and local news During this period most of the complaints re 42
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 2.5 out of 6
Category: Poor Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 3 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 4 2
No. of Sentences: 16 15
No. of Words: 334 350
No. of Characters: 1650 1500
No. of Different Words: 160 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.275 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.94 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.617 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 122 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 82 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 58 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 34 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.875 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 13.905 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.438 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.319 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.319 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.094 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 83, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...he Super Screen Movie Production Company express his conclusion as a advertising ...
^^
Line 1, column 111, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'an' instead of 'a' if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g. 'an article', 'an hour'
Suggestion: an
...tion Company express his conclusion as a advertising director that Super Screen ...
^
Line 2, column 136, Rule ID: FEWER_LESS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'fewer'? The noun people is countable.
Suggestion: fewer
...they conducted the study when there are less people in the movie theater due to vari...
^^^^
Line 2, column 207, Rule ID: MAY_BE[1]
Message: Did you mean 'maybe' (=perhaps)?
Suggestion: maybe
...r due to various reasons. For instance, may be they conduct the study on office days o...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, furthermore, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, thus, while, for instance
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 19.6327345309 66% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 12.9520958084 54% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 11.1786427146 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 22.0 28.8173652695 76% => OK
Preposition: 35.0 55.5748502994 63% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 16.3942115768 61% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1688.0 2260.96107784 75% => OK
No of words: 334.0 441.139720559 76% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.05389221557 5.12650576532 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.27500489853 4.56307096286 94% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.71476825043 2.78398813304 98% => OK
Unique words: 163.0 204.123752495 80% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.488023952096 0.468620217663 104% => OK
syllable_count: 524.7 705.55239521 74% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => 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: 16.0 19.7664670659 81% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 81.7752015818 57.8364921388 141% => OK
Chars per sentence: 105.5 119.503703932 88% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.875 23.324526521 89% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.625 5.70786347227 99% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.88822355289 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.30726111411 0.218282227539 141% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.090392874079 0.0743258471296 122% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0747478223361 0.0701772020484 107% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.146294732918 0.128457276422 114% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0975082901899 0.0628817314937 155% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.8 14.3799401198 89% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 48.3550499002 106% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.197005988 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.01 12.5979740519 95% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.94 8.32208582834 95% => OK
difficult_words: 70.0 98.500998004 71% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 12.3882235529 93% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.