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.”
Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the recommendation and the argument on which it is based are reasonable.
Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the recommendation.
The author claims here that greater budget should be allocated in marketing to restore the company's audiances. Stated in this way, the argument fails to mention some key points, on the basis of which it could have been evaluated. To support his claim, the author reasons that as the percentage of postive reviews have increased, so the quality of the move is not the problem. Rather, the problem is advertisement of the movies. However, careful scrutiny of evidence reveals that it provides little credible support to the author's claim. Hence, the argument can be considered incomplete and unsustainable.
Firstly, the author readily assumes that , the quality of the movie has not deterioted as the percentage of positive reviews have increased. This is merely an assumption without much solid ground. To illustarte, what if the quality have fallen and only a few people with poor taste come to see the movies? There reviews will not represent the feeling of the whole colllection of audiences. Moreever, percentage is a vague representation of the actual number of the audiences. Hence, it would have been much more convincing if the author had explicitly stated that
Again, the auhtor points out that, advertising the positive revies will help to regain the audiences. This is again a weak and unsupported claim that does not demonstrate any clear correlation between exploitation of reviews and attraction of people for the movies. What if there are other factors of advertising that the company is missing to incorporate? May be they don't actually making lucrative trailers or short clipss? Thus, if the author provided evidence that all other aspects of advertisements are done perfectly, it would have been much more convincing.
Finally, the assertion concluded by the author raises some skeptical questions. What if the reports of the marketing team are faulty? Are there are other companys that are producing better movies? Do taste of people have chnages? Do the moves are actually getting increased positive reviews from crtitics? Without answering these questions, the reader is left with the assumption that the claim is just a wishful thinking of the author rather than sustantive evidence.
In conclusion, the argument is unpersuasive as it stands. To bolster further, the author should have provided evidence with the help of some statical data which are authentic with respect to whole market. Without any of them, the argument is weak.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-01-06 | Sumaiya Mila | 50 | view |
| 2020-01-06 | Shams Tarek | 46 | view |
| 2020-01-02 | jamaya8 | 66 | view |
| 2019-12-26 | Yongrok_Jeong | 49 | view |
| 2019-12-10 | Opak Pulu | 16 | view |
- 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 a 16
- Governments should invest as much in the arts as they do in the military.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and suppor 50
- Mass media and the internet have caused people’s attention spans to get shorter. However, the overall effect has been positive: while people are less able to focus on one thing, they more than make up for it with an enhanced ability to sort through lar 50
- Summarise the points made in the lecture, being sure to explain how they case doubt on specific points made in the reading passage. 3
- 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 50
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 41, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma, but not before the comma
Suggestion: ,
...Firstly, the author readily assumes that , the quality of the movie has not deteri...
^^
Line 9, column 358, Rule ID: MAY_BE[1]
Message: Did you mean 'maybe' (=perhaps)?
Suggestion: Maybe
... the company is missing to incorporate? May be they dont actually making lucrative tra...
^^^^^^
Line 9, column 370, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
... is missing to incorporate? May be they dont actually making lucrative trailers or s...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, finally, first, firstly, hence, however, if, may, so, then, thus, in conclusion, with respect to
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 24.0 19.6327345309 122% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.9520958084 69% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 11.1786427146 45% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 13.0 13.6137724551 95% => OK
Pronoun: 23.0 28.8173652695 80% => OK
Preposition: 45.0 55.5748502994 81% => OK
Nominalization: 18.0 16.3942115768 110% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2079.0 2260.96107784 92% => OK
No of words: 396.0 441.139720559 90% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.25 5.12650576532 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.46091344257 4.56307096286 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.77159823071 2.78398813304 100% => OK
Unique words: 205.0 204.123752495 100% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.517676767677 0.468620217663 110% => OK
syllable_count: 642.6 705.55239521 91% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 13.0 8.76447105788 148% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.22255489022 166% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 25.0 19.7664670659 126% => OK
Sentence length: 15.0 22.8473053892 66% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 42.8891781222 57.8364921388 74% => OK
Chars per sentence: 83.16 119.503703932 70% => OK
Words per sentence: 15.84 23.324526521 68% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.24 5.70786347227 74% => OK
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 : 13.0 6.88822355289 189% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.67664670659 64% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0784971658511 0.218282227539 36% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0246775382775 0.0743258471296 33% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0315099008014 0.0701772020484 45% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0470857638512 0.128457276422 37% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0387284082143 0.0628817314937 62% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.2 14.3799401198 78% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 56.25 48.3550499002 116% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 12.197005988 75% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.87 12.5979740519 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.61 8.32208582834 103% => OK
difficult_words: 106.0 98.500998004 108% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 12.3882235529 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.0 11.1389221557 72% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.9071856287 67% => The average readability is low. Need to imporve the language.
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 16.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.