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.
Author here is providing an explanation about why the movies produced by Super Screen ar not gaining enough attention from the public. He attributes this to the lack of public's awareness about movies of good quality. On first look this argument looks reasonable but on careful examination it is evident that it's taken into account many assumptions which if proven false will render this argument wrong.
First, the editor mentions about the increase in percentage of positive reviews about specific movies and use this to assert that content of movies is not the problem. This point is baseless because percentage is not the right measure to count the increase in positive reviews. What if before last year because of many people going to their movies the reviews were unbiased and count of positive reviews was meager and last year only fans of the production house went to the movies and gave positive reviews. This will imply that the increase in percentage is because of these biased reviews.
Second, the author states that reviews are not reaching to the public. In this age where technology is at its peak, it's fatuous to think that people are not aware of the reviews. There is a possibility that most of the prospective viewers have already read the reviews and considering the past experience they decided not to see the movie. The advertising director provides a vague reason to support this point which can be easily proved to be false.
Third, the director makes an hasty generalization that more budget should be spent on advertising to reach the public. This is completely baseless as without taking into account the views of the critics or the public who saw the movie via DVD's, he concluded that there is no problem with the content and problem lies within the marketing strategy of the production.
To, conclude, I would like to say that if the abovementioned assumptions are true it would make the point of advertising director baseless and fallacious. Proper statistics need to be provided regarding the number of reviews recieved in various years, which could make this argument more cogent.
| 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 |
- A recent study of eighteen rhesus monkeys provides clues as to the effects of birth order on an individual's levels of stimulation. The study showed that in stimulating situations (such as an encounter with an unfamiliar monkey), firstborn infant monkeys 88
- The greatness of individuals can be decided only by those who live after them, not by their contemporaries. 66
- 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 58
- A recent study of Dura-Socks customers suggests that our company is wasting the money it spends on its patented Endure manufacturing process, which ensures that our socks are strong enough to last for two years. We have always advertised our use of the En 32
- Nations should pass laws to preserve any remaining wilderness areas in their natural state, even if these areas could be developed for economic gain. 50
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Sentence: Proper statistics need to be provided regarding the number of reviews recieved in various years, which could make this argument more cogent.
Error: recieved Suggestion: received
----------------
argument 1 -- not OK
argument 2 -- OK
argument 3 -- OK
----------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 1 2
No. of Sentences: 15 15
No. of Words: 355 350
No. of Characters: 1735 1500
No. of Different Words: 190 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.341 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.887 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.519 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 125 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 90 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 57 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 30 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 23.667 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.784 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.467 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.331 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.615 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.114 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 355, Rule ID: IF_IS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'is'?
Suggestion: is
...ken into account many assumptions which if proven false will render this argument ...
^^
Line 5, column 290, Rule ID: PAST_EXPERIENCE_MEMORY[1]
Message: Use simply 'experience'.
Suggestion: experience
...dy read the reviews and considering the past experience they decided not to see the movie. The ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 27, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'a' instead of 'an' if the following word doesn't start with a vowel sound, e.g. 'a sentence', 'a university'
Suggestion: a
... be false. Third, the director makes an hasty generalization that more budget s...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, if, look, regarding, second, so, third
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 19.6327345309 97% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 12.9520958084 62% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 13.6137724551 103% => OK
Pronoun: 30.0 28.8173652695 104% => OK
Preposition: 52.0 55.5748502994 94% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 16.3942115768 61% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1770.0 2260.96107784 78% => OK
No of words: 355.0 441.139720559 80% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.98591549296 5.12650576532 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.34067318298 4.56307096286 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.56287566617 2.78398813304 92% => OK
Unique words: 188.0 204.123752495 92% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.529577464789 0.468620217663 113% => OK
syllable_count: 550.8 705.55239521 78% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Article: 4.0 8.76447105788 46% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.70958083832 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 19.7664670659 76% => 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: 23.0 22.8473053892 101% => OK
Sentence length SD: 50.18871055 57.8364921388 87% => OK
Chars per sentence: 118.0 119.503703932 99% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.6666666667 23.324526521 101% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.33333333333 5.70786347227 58% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.88822355289 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.242953998051 0.218282227539 111% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0786249642479 0.0743258471296 106% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0922338633389 0.0701772020484 131% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.11277483824 0.128457276422 88% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0922267852632 0.0628817314937 147% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.9 14.3799401198 97% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 48.13 48.3550499002 100% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.197005988 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.96 12.5979740519 95% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.07 8.32208582834 97% => OK
difficult_words: 74.0 98.500998004 75% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.1389221557 101% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 75.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.5 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.