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 nioVies 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.
Director of Super Screen Movie Production Company concludes that, although quality of the movie they produced last year were good, fewer people attended the movies because of lack of publicity, hence greater budget has to be allocated next year for advertisements. In order to consider this recommendation few questions have to be answered like validity of the report from marketing department, true reason for decline in viewership and also validity of the positive reviews from the critics.
First, director mentions about report from marketing department which concluded that number of people attending movie has declined during last year. However, scope and validity of this report is not clearly explained. For example, it is possible that in the previous year more movies were produced by the company compared to present year, which can be the reason for more number of people attending the movie. If the the scope and validity of the report is clearly stated and its proves to be accurate only then the recommendation holds good.
Second, director states that although movies received positive reviews from critics,people are not turning up because they are not aware of the reviews. This claim seems baseless. There is possiblity that reviews might have reached the people, but they didn't attend the movie just because the review was published by some other critic whose reputation was not well establised. In order director's claim reagarding reviews not reaching people to be valid, scientific survey has to be conducted to really understand that people are not aware of the new movies released.
While directors claim to allocate greater budget to promote movies seems reasonable, it fails to make compelling case. Director's argument makes numerous unstated assumption, that seriously undermines the validity. In order to make a compelling case director has to answer the questions discussed above.
- A person who knowingly commits a crime has broken the social contract and should not retain any civil rights or the right to benefit from his or her own labor. 50
- We learn our most valuable lessons in life from struggling with our limitations rather than from enjoying our successes. 50
- In order for any work of art — for example, a film, a novel, a poem, or a song — to have merit, it must be understandable to most people. 58
- According to a recent report from our marketingdepartment, during the past year, fewer people attendedSuper Screen-produced movies than in any other year.And yet the percentage of positive reviews by moviereviewers about specific Super Screen movies actu 23
- A movie producer sent the following memo to the head of the movie studio."We need to increase the funding for the movie Working Title by 10% in order to ensure a quality product. As you know, we are working with a first-time director, whose only prev 33
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: ??? out of 6
Category: Poor Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 13 15
No. of Words: 303 350
No. of Characters: 1580 1500
No. of Different Words: 158 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.172 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.215 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.578 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 126 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 92 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 68 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 36 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 23.308 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.816 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.769 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.37 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.598 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.041 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 414, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: the
...umber of people attending the movie. If the the scope and validity of the report is cle...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 414, Rule ID: DT_DT[1]
Message: Maybe you need to remove one determiner so that only 'the' or 'the' is left.
Suggestion: the; the
...umber of people attending the movie. If the the scope and validity of the report is cle...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 481, Rule ID: PROVE_PROOF[2]
Message: Did you mean 'proofs' (noun) instead of proves (verb)?
Suggestion: proofs
...of the report is clearly stated and its proves to be accurate only then the recommenda...
^^^^^^
Line 5, column 84, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma
Suggestion: , people
...s received positive reviews from critics,people are not turning up because they are not...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 254, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: didn't
...might have reached the people, but they didnt attend the movie just because the revie...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, hence, however, if, really, second, so, then, well, while, as to, for example
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 19.6327345309 87% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 2.0 12.9520958084 15% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 11.1786427146 45% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 10.0 13.6137724551 73% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 16.0 28.8173652695 56% => OK
Preposition: 41.0 55.5748502994 74% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 16.3942115768 49% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1617.0 2260.96107784 72% => OK
No of words: 301.0 441.139720559 68% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.37209302326 5.12650576532 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.16525528304 4.56307096286 91% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.67930261209 2.78398813304 96% => OK
Unique words: 160.0 204.123752495 78% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.531561461794 0.468620217663 113% => OK
syllable_count: 505.8 705.55239521 72% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 0.0 8.76447105788 0% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 19.7664670659 66% => 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: 64.7058889979 57.8364921388 112% => OK
Chars per sentence: 124.384615385 119.503703932 104% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.1538461538 23.324526521 99% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.30769230769 5.70786347227 128% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 5.0 5.25449101796 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.88822355289 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.260921306465 0.218282227539 120% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0868793851308 0.0743258471296 117% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0810665784125 0.0701772020484 116% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.157658127875 0.128457276422 123% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0852558039401 0.0628817314937 136% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.4 14.3799401198 107% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 39.67 48.3550499002 82% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 12.197005988 110% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.16 12.5979740519 112% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.03 8.32208582834 109% => OK
difficult_words: 81.0 98.500998004 82% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 19.0 12.3882235529 153% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.1389221557 101% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => 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.