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 argument is about the Super Screen Movie Production Company's marketing department that their movies were less viewed despite a positive review: indicating that their movie is certainly made up of good quality and its lack of public awareness causing the decrease in viewers. But this whole scenario is rife with the assumption only as there are no any bold relevant data and information regarding various aspect of the movies and its viewers.
Firstly, arguer is stating that the fewer people attend their movie this year than that of any other year according to the report from the marketing department of the production house. The main flaw in this is that the true number might have been the best to support this statement rather indicating it as a fewer: as few does not indicate that before people's number was extremely huge in fact it might be low from start. Hence, not possible to judge this claim provided by the author.
Secondly, claim of film to be good is mentioned by indication a good percentage of the people reviewed it to be positive. But the percentage will not justify the total number of people involved in the review than the past year. Similarly, on the basis of this another claim of content not reaching to prospective reviews is made and again this is assumption only as this might be the outcome of movies being not so good in the content. So, again a conclusion of this can be drawn as full of flaw contents can be made clearly,
Thirdly, the main problem is given to the lack of awareness factor that is causing decrease in the number of viewers rather that to the content. And again there is no any certain data or information to prove it as the main reason of downfall of movie can be of its lack of content wanted by the people as mentioned flaw in above paragraph. So, there is no any case which support the final claim of the argument as a greater share of the budget must be allocated to reach the public via advertisement as it is not sure that the lack of response or the excitement is the result of lack of awareness or it is the bad or tepid content of the movie.
Finally, it can be conclude that this argument is full of lacuna only.
| 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 |
- Critical judgment of work in any given field has little value unless it comes from someone who is an expert in that field 16
- Claim Any piece of information referred to as a fact should be mistrusted since it may well be proven false in the future Reason Much of the information that people assume is factual actually turns out to be inaccurate 58
- A pet food company recalled 4 million pounds of pet food in response to complaints that pets that had consumed the food experienced vomiting lethargy and other signs of illness After the recall the pet food company tested samples from the recalled food an 50
- Critical judgment of work in any given field has little value unless it comes from someone who is an expert in that field 50
- 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 actual 59
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 2 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 3 2
No. of Sentences: 12 15
No. of Words: 395 350
No. of Characters: 1759 1500
No. of Different Words: 169 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.458 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.453 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.396 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 112 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 81 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 54 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 33 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 32.917 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 14.262 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.833 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.362 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.362 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.079 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 350, Rule ID: NOW[2]
Message: Did you mean 'now' (=at this moment) instead of 'no' (negation)?
Suggestion: now
...e with the assumption only as there are no any bold relevant data and information ...
^^
Line 4, column 165, Rule ID: NOW[2]
Message: Did you mean 'now' (=at this moment) instead of 'no' (negation)?
Suggestion: now
...that to the content. And again there is no any certain data or information to prov...
^^
Line 4, column 354, Rule ID: NOW[2]
Message: Did you mean 'now' (=at this moment) instead of 'no' (negation)?
Suggestion: now
...d flaw in above paragraph. So, there is no any case which support the final claim ...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, firstly, hence, if, regarding, second, secondly, similarly, so, third, thirdly, in fact
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 30.0 19.6327345309 153% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.9520958084 69% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 11.1786427146 98% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 33.0 28.8173652695 115% => OK
Preposition: 57.0 55.5748502994 103% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 16.3942115768 91% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1788.0 2260.96107784 79% => OK
No of words: 395.0 441.139720559 90% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.52658227848 5.12650576532 88% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.45809453852 4.56307096286 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.43847544051 2.78398813304 88% => OK
Unique words: 173.0 204.123752495 85% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.437974683544 0.468620217663 93% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 568.8 705.55239521 81% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.59920159681 88% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 4.96107784431 20% => OK
Article: 3.0 8.76447105788 34% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.70958083832 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.22255489022 24% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 19.7664670659 61% => 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: 32.0 22.8473053892 140% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 74.8023321086 57.8364921388 129% => OK
Chars per sentence: 149.0 119.503703932 125% => OK
Words per sentence: 32.9166666667 23.324526521 141% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.0 5.70786347227 158% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.20758483034 61% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.67664670659 21% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.252742069997 0.218282227539 116% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.105434630885 0.0743258471296 142% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.122921379063 0.0701772020484 175% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.130473567864 0.128457276422 102% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0978619367894 0.0628817314937 156% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.4 14.3799401198 114% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 55.92 48.3550499002 116% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 12.197005988 110% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 9.59 12.5979740519 76% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.34 8.32208582834 100% => OK
difficult_words: 78.0 98.500998004 79% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 18.0 12.3882235529 145% => OK
gunning_fog: 14.8 11.1389221557 133% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.9071856287 84% => 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.