The following is taken from a memo from the advertising director of the Super Screen Movie Production Company,
"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."
I do not support the recommendation made at the end of the argument due to several reasons. Firstly, the report of this movie production company only states that in the past year fewer people attended the screening of the movies produced by this company in question, but it does not mention anywhere if people attended other movie screenings produced by other production companies constantly in the past year, compared with the previous years. This invalidates the argument that only the said production company has experienced fewer public responses than other companies.
Although the advertising director claims that movie reviewers have positively reviewed the movies by this company more in the past year than any other year, it does not specify that the movies they reviewed positively were produced in the past year exactly, which creates confusion. Even if we consider that the movies received with appropriate acknowledgement were produced in the past year for the sake of argument, we do not know the facts and statistics if they are gaining more positive reviews than other movies produced from competing production agencies in comparison.
The director's suggestion that the problem lies with the lack of public awareness rather than other subsidiary factors can be refuted by the fact that maybe the advertisements are not doing justice in promoting the movies. The advertisements displayed to public could have been misleading, and might have resulted into driving regular movie viewers into being uninterested with watching them.The concepts of the respective movies were probably inaccurately portrayed while they were advertised. Increasing the allocated share of budget would not magically result in enhancing the quality content of the advertising, or play a direct role in improving the possible perfunctory advertising policies that might have been employed in the past year for the movies' promotions.
Therefore, I conclude by refusing to the assumption stated by the argument presented in the memo, the recommendation is not necessarily correct by all means and contain several seriously miscalculated judgements, and the argument should be considered with more deliberation.
- The following is taken from a memo from the advertising director of the Super Screen Movie Production Company,"According to a recent report from our marketing department, during the past year, fewer people attended Super Screen- produced movies than 42
- The following is a memorandum from the business manager of a television station."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 time period, most of the 43
- An international development organization, in response to a vitamin A deficiency among people in the impoverished nation of Tagus, has engineered a new breed of millet high in vitamin A. While seeds for this new type of millet cost more, farmers will be p 42
- Men and women, because of their inherent physical differences, are not equally suited for many tasks. 75
- Nations should pass laws to preserve any remaining wilderness areas in their natural state. 50
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 2.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 9 15
No. of Words: 340 350
No. of Characters: 1836 1500
No. of Different Words: 174 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.294 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.4 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.903 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 137 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 115 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 89 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 56 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 37.778 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 12.145 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.444 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.442 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.7 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.145 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 218, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...r fewer people attended the screening of the movies produced by this company in q...
^^
Line 9, column 5, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'directors'' or 'director's'?
Suggestion: directors'; director's
...uction agencies in comparison. The directors suggestion that the problem lies with t...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 392, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: The
...o being uninterested with watching them.The concepts of the respective movies were ...
^^^
Line 9, column 392, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...o being uninterested with watching them.The concepts of the respective movies were ...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, firstly, if, may, so, therefore, while
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 19.6327345309 61% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 12.9520958084 46% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 11.1786427146 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 9.0 13.6137724551 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 22.0 28.8173652695 76% => OK
Preposition: 45.0 55.5748502994 81% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 16.3942115768 104% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1874.0 2260.96107784 83% => OK
No of words: 339.0 441.139720559 77% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.52802359882 5.12650576532 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.29091512845 4.56307096286 94% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.96415999291 2.78398813304 106% => OK
Unique words: 177.0 204.123752495 87% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.522123893805 0.468620217663 111% => OK
syllable_count: 583.2 705.55239521 83% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Article: 5.0 8.76447105788 57% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.67365269461 239% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 0.0 4.22255489022 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 9.0 19.7664670659 46% => 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: 37.0 22.8473053892 162% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 78.5168064104 57.8364921388 136% => OK
Chars per sentence: 208.222222222 119.503703932 174% => OK
Words per sentence: 37.6666666667 23.324526521 161% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.55555555556 5.70786347227 97% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.20758483034 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
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: 0.281494770212 0.218282227539 129% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.105911576222 0.0743258471296 142% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0922815186638 0.0701772020484 131% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.149102015183 0.128457276422 116% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0955051960745 0.0628817314937 152% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 23.5 14.3799401198 163% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 25.46 48.3550499002 53% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 18.9 12.197005988 155% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.39 12.5979740519 122% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.08 8.32208582834 121% => OK
difficult_words: 99.0 98.500998004 101% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 12.3882235529 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 16.8 11.1389221557 151% => OK
text_standard: 24.0 11.9071856287 202% => The average readability is very high. Good job!
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.