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
While it may be true that if people are more aware of the good reviews of the Super Screen movies, they might be more interested in watching those movies, the author's argument does not make a cogent case for increasing the viewership of the Super Screen movies. It is easy to understand that Super Screen movies needs to reach larger audience but the argument given is rife with holes and assumptions and thus, not strong enough to convince the management to allocate greater share of its budget to advertising.
Firstly, the author here assumes that there is a direct relationship between positive reviews of the movies and number of viewers. There may be case that the Super Screen movies are not made for normal audience and only targeted to audience of specific genre. If this is the case, more positive reviews are not enough to increase viewership of the movies. The viewing or subscribing cost of the movies may also be high, which may be a strong reason for lower viewership. So the Super Screen Movie Company should either make movies targeted at larger audience and lower their movie viewing costs before considering increased budget in advertising.
Furthermore, the author has said positive reviews have increased assumes that it has increased to a good number. Rather they might just have increased relatively. The ratio of good reviews before last year may be 1 in 10 and now may have increased to 3 in 10, which is still bad and thus the viewership is low for the Super Screen Movies. In which case advertising can also have a negetive effect than expected. The author needs to acertain that the positive review are enough to attract more viewers to view the movie.
Finally, the author assumes that the company can positively divert the budget to advertising and allocate a greater share to it. But the company may be low on funds and so no more budgets can be allocated to advertising. If budget is diverted from other departments like movie making or other, this may cause lowering the quality of the movie, which should have been the primary priority. If this is the case then company should find a way to make effective advertising in the same budget.
In short, the author's argument is one of the pottential way to increase viewership of the movies, the above assumptions cannot be directly made and would have to be properly considered before actually the managing group can take a decision on allocating a larger budget share to advertising department.
| 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 |
- 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
- 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 a 50
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 160, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...nterested in watching those movies, the authors argument does not make a cogent case fo...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 114, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Rather,
...that it has increased to a good number. Rather they might just have increased relative...
^^^^^^
Line 7, column 390, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “If” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
... should have been the primary priority. If this is the case then company should fi...
^^
Line 9, column 15, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...ng in the same budget. In short, the authors argument is one of the pottential way t...
^^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['actually', 'also', 'but', 'finally', 'first', 'firstly', 'furthermore', 'if', 'may', 'so', 'still', 'then', 'thus', 'while', 'in short']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.241228070175 0.25644967241 94% => OK
Verbs: 0.166666666667 0.15541462614 107% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0921052631579 0.0836205057962 110% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0657894736842 0.0520304965353 126% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0175438596491 0.0272364105082 64% => OK
Prepositions: 0.103070175439 0.125424944231 82% => OK
Participles: 0.0460526315789 0.0416121511921 111% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.57210589201 2.79052419416 92% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0416666666667 0.026700313972 156% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.001811407834 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.109649122807 0.113004496875 97% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0416666666667 0.0255425247493 163% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.00877192982456 0.0127820249294 69% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2497.0 2731.13054187 91% => OK
No of words: 425.0 446.07635468 95% => OK
Chars per words: 5.87529411765 6.12365571057 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.54043259262 4.57801047555 99% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.362352941176 0.378187486979 96% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.24 0.287650121315 83% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.164705882353 0.208842608468 79% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.0894117647059 0.135150697306 66% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.57210589201 2.79052419416 92% => OK
Unique words: 181.0 207.018472906 87% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.425882352941 0.469332199767 91% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
Word variations: 45.8696901959 52.1807786196 88% => OK
How many sentences: 17.0 20.039408867 85% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 23.2022227129 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 69.4851058199 57.7814097925 120% => OK
Chars per sentence: 146.882352941 141.986410481 103% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.0 23.2022227129 108% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.882352941176 0.724660767414 122% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 3.58251231527 112% => OK
Readability: 49.0 51.9672348444 94% => OK
Elegance: 1.56140350877 1.8405768891 85% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.367544460325 0.441005458295 83% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.15317693615 0.135418324435 113% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0731751591042 0.0829849096947 88% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.59115207024 0.58762219726 101% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.167206686575 0.147661913831 113% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.16105445541 0.193483328276 83% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0799136072428 0.0970749176394 82% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.509332998723 0.42659136922 119% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0598192598378 0.0774707102158 77% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.264418215432 0.312017818177 85% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0567976137668 0.0698173142475 81% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 15.0 8.33743842365 180% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 6.87684729064 15% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.82512315271 21% => More neutral sentences wanted.
Positive topic words: 15.0 6.46551724138 232% => OK
Negative topic words: 1.0 5.36822660099 19% => More negative topic words wanted.
Neutral topic words: 1.0 2.82389162562 35% => OK
Total topic words: 17.0 14.657635468 116% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 Out of 6 -- The score is based on the average performance of 20,000 argument essays. This e-grader is not smart enough to check on arguments.
---------------------
Note: This is not the final score. 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.