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 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.
The argument is based on several fallcious assumptions and fails to provide substantive evidences to support them. It makes the unwarranted assumption that the public's lack of awareness is the only problem and summarily disregards other important factors such as the credulity of the reviews or the numbers taken into account, thus rendering the main conclusion of the argument invalid.
First of all, the argument explicitely states that the percentage of positive reviewers have increased but doesn't specify any numbers. We need to ask, can we really trust these percentages? It can very well be that only 2 people gave positive reviews, thus increasing the percentage but compared to the entire 1000 people they are nothing. Again, there can be multiple positive reviews from a single person who is trying to improve the company's image. Perhaps, the positive reviews are so so or mostly close to neutral while the negative ones are excessively scathing and some arejust egregious. All of these accounts for the fact that even though the percentage increased, the actual quality of the movies haven't gone up, rather they may be even lower. Had the author provided any information regarding the validity and strengths of each positive review then that would strengthen the argument's claims. Even then he would have to further prove that this percentage increase is large enough when compared to the whole to become a significant factor in determining the quality of the movies.
Secondly, the recent report mentioned says that fewer people attended than in any other year. One might ask, just how less are the numbers or what is the validity of the reports. Perhaps, last year 2000 people visited and this year 1995 people visited which is less when compared to 2000 but not a very significant decrease to determine whether the public are less aware or not. Then the validity of the recent reports come into question. Are they valid? Are they done by disinterested people? If it turned out that the company was reporting fewer numbers of viewers to inflate its percentage increase then the arguments claim that the problem lies with solely the awareness of the public and not the quality falls apart. The argument, thus needs to provide solid evidence linking its increase in quality to the actual numbers presented to increase its credulity.
Finally, the argument suggests that super screen should allocate a greater share of its budget next year. Even if we ignore the fact that the quality of the movie isn't necessarily better to justify this increase, many other questions remain unanswered. Can Super Screen really manage to pull all these funds without jeoperdizing any other of its crucial sectors? It can lead to a greater downfall of customers if the quality or the customer services of the movies fell because the company was too busy advertising their products and funds had to be appropriated for that cause. Even after the funding problem is solved, we still cannot answer the question of the customer's probable increase. Many customers might ignore the advertisement while others might think that Super Screen is trying to complement its poor quality movies with fancy advertising. The advertising measure taken, therefore, can have either no effect or, worse, negative in some cases.
In conclusion, the argument makes several unattested assumptions and until further evidence is provided, these assumptions severely undermine the argument presented.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-12-24 | Cynic | 43 | view |
| 2019-12-14 | nimesh94 | 42 | view |
| 2019-12-14 | mcmaster | 33 | view |
| 2019-12-10 | pooja.kakde@gmail.com | 59 | view |
| 2019-11-28 | a251ravind | 63 | view |
- "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 received from viewers were concerned with our station's coverage of weather an 73
- As people rely more and more on technology to solve problems the ability of humans to think for themselves will surely deteriorate 83
- The best way to teach is to praise positive actions and ignore negative ones. 83
- Some people believe that corporations have a responsibility to promote the wellbeing of the societies and environments in which they operate. Others believe that the only responsibility of corporations, provided they operate within the law, is to make as 89
- Men and women, because of their inherent physical differences, are not equally suited for many tasks. 54
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Sentence: The argument is based on several fallcious assumptions and fails to provide substantive evidences to support them.
Error: fallcious Suggestion: fallacious
Sentence: First of all, the argument explicitely states that the percentage of positive reviewers have increased but doesn't specify any numbers.
Error: explicitely Suggestion: explicitly
Sentence: Perhaps, the positive reviews are so so or mostly close to neutral while the negative ones are excessively scathing and some arejust egregious.
Error: arejust Suggestion: are just
Sentence: Can Super Screen really manage to pull all these funds without jeoperdizing any other of its crucial sectors?
Error: jeoperdizing Suggestion: jeopardizing
----------------
argument 1 -- not OK. look, it only told that: the percentage of positive reviews by movie reviewers about specific Super Screen movies actually increased, not for all movies
argument 2 -- not OK. need to argue this:
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 public's lack of awareness that movies of good quality are available.
we may argue like:
maybe prospective viewers have reached people. people may watch those movies by phone, from Internet, or DVD...
argument 3 -- OK
----------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 2.0 out of 6
Category: Poor Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 4 2
No. of Sentences: 26 15
No. of Words: 566 350
No. of Characters: 2858 1500
No. of Different Words: 282 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.878 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.049 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.572 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 218 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 166 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 110 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 63 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.769 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.689 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.808 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.271 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.454 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.082 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 108, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...f positive reviewers have increased but doesnt specify any numbers. We need to ask, ca...
^^^^^^
Line 3, column 487, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: so
...mage. Perhaps, the positive reviews are so so or mostly close to neutral while the ne...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 708, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: haven't
...eased, the actual quality of the movies havent gone up, rather they may be even lower....
^^^^^^
Line 7, column 164, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: isn't
... the fact that the quality of the movie isnt necessarily better to justify this incr...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, if, may, really, regarding, second, secondly, so, still, then, therefore, thus, well, while, as to, in conclusion, such as, first of all, in some cases
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 19.6327345309 112% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.9520958084 116% => OK
Conjunction : 17.0 11.1786427146 152% => OK
Relative clauses : 17.0 13.6137724551 125% => OK
Pronoun: 41.0 28.8173652695 142% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 57.0 55.5748502994 103% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 16.3942115768 91% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2919.0 2260.96107784 129% => OK
No of words: 563.0 441.139720559 128% => OK
Chars per words: 5.18472468917 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.87110059796 4.56307096286 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.60988122086 2.78398813304 94% => OK
Unique words: 285.0 204.123752495 140% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.50621669627 0.468620217663 108% => OK
syllable_count: 923.4 705.55239521 131% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.22255489022 24% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 26.0 19.7664670659 132% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 57.8454889487 57.8364921388 100% => OK
Chars per sentence: 112.269230769 119.503703932 94% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.6538461538 23.324526521 93% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.61538461538 5.70786347227 116% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.20758483034 134% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 6.88822355289 145% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.67664670659 107% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.234223180532 0.218282227539 107% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0617086805466 0.0743258471296 83% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.063785216999 0.0701772020484 91% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.100342726533 0.128457276422 78% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0687653252982 0.0628817314937 109% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.8 14.3799401198 96% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 48.3550499002 104% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.197005988 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.76 12.5979740519 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.55 8.32208582834 103% => OK
difficult_words: 138.0 98.500998004 140% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 12.3882235529 93% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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.