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.
As stated by the advertising director of the Super Screen Movie Production company, to increase the viewership of the Super Screen-produced movies, Super Screen should allocate a greater share of its budget next year to reaching the public through advertising. The director states basis the evidence that in spite of fewer people attended Super Screen-produced movies a past year than in any other year, the percentage of positive reviews by movie reviewers actually increased past year. To evaluate the argument, one needs to ask the two questions.
First, are the prospective viewer's reviews also increased in the past year? One needs to ask this question before jumping to evaluate the argument. There can be cases when movie reviewers review the movie positively and despite that, the movie doesn't get a good response when it hit the theatres. The movie reviewer's angle of perception to evaluate the movie might be different from the general public. There can also be the biasness when movie reviews provide the reviews. Hence, relying on positive reviews by movie reviewers can't guarantee the quality or the content of the movie.
Secondly, are other production house movies also getting less response? Are people not aware of the good qualities of movies available in the market? One should find out before making the statement that people are not aware of the good quality movies available. For instance, if another production house movie is getting a good response and people are going to watch those movies, then there must be something wrong with Super Screen movies - that might be content, quality, or something else. If overall viewership in the area across all production house movies has been increased and the percentage share of the super screen movies is decreasing, then there must be some issue with production house movies. If the viewership is due to the content or quality of the movies produced by the super screen production house, even investing money on advertising won't be of much help.
Concludingly, if these questions can be answered, one would be able to evaluate the argument. Otherwise, the statement made by advertising director remains flawed.
- Our current way of life will have a negative impact on future generations 73
- Some parents forbid young children from owning smart phones cell phones with Internet access while others disagree and believe that they are important tools for keeping in touch Which point of view do you think is better and why 76
- 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 50
- Toward the end of his life, the Chevalier de Seingalt (1725-1798) wrote a long memoir recounting his life and adventures. The Chevalier was a somewhat controversial figure, but since he met many famous people, including kings and writers, his memoir has b 80
- the best way for a society to prepare its young people for leadership in government, industry, or other fields is by instilling in them a sense of cooperation, not competition. 58
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 17 15
No. of Words: 356 350
No. of Characters: 1794 1500
No. of Different Words: 161 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.344 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.039 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.596 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 131 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 96 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 71 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 42 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.941 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.652 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.529 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.357 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.561 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.13 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 245, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
... positively and despite that, the movie doesnt get a good response when it hit the the...
^^^^^^
Line 5, column 388, Rule ID: GENERAL_XX[1]
Message: Use simply 'public'.
Suggestion: public
...e the movie might be different from the general public. There can also be the biasness when mo...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 529, Rule ID: CANT[1]
Message: Did you mean 'can't' or 'cannot'?
Suggestion: can't; cannot
... on positive reviews by movie reviewers cant guarantee the quality or the content of...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, first, hence, if, second, secondly, so, then, for instance, in spite of
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 19.6327345309 92% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.9520958084 77% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 11.1786427146 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 7.0 13.6137724551 51% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 9.0 28.8173652695 31% => OK
Preposition: 46.0 55.5748502994 83% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 16.3942115768 91% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1840.0 2260.96107784 81% => OK
No of words: 354.0 441.139720559 80% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.19774011299 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.33761313653 4.56307096286 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.67211867451 2.78398813304 96% => OK
Unique words: 167.0 204.123752495 82% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.471751412429 0.468620217663 101% => OK
syllable_count: 575.1 705.55239521 82% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 0.0 4.96107784431 0% => OK
Article: 5.0 8.76447105788 57% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 19.7664670659 86% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 65.4149385603 57.8364921388 113% => OK
Chars per sentence: 108.235294118 119.503703932 91% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.8235294118 23.324526521 89% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.11764705882 5.70786347227 90% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.20758483034 122% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 6.88822355289 44% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.67664670659 86% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.34975304722 0.218282227539 160% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.114389800536 0.0743258471296 154% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0974176013309 0.0701772020484 139% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.201615293991 0.128457276422 157% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.13412439807 0.0628817314937 213% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.5 14.3799401198 94% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 48.3550499002 106% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.197005988 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.88 12.5979740519 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.88 8.32208582834 95% => OK
difficult_words: 73.0 98.500998004 74% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 12.3882235529 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => 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.