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 director recommended that a greater share of the company's budget next year should be allocated to reaching the public through advertising. The director based this recommendation on the 'fact' that the contents of the positive reviews they get on their movies are not reaching their prospective viewers due to lack of awareness. However, before this recommendation can be considered reasonable, two questions need to be answered.
First, are the previous years comparable to the past year? In other words, are the situation of things the same over the years? Perhaps, there were more holidays and festivities in the previous year than in the past year. Also, it is possible that a new movie production company has just been established in the past year, and hence, it has been attracting more customers. If the above proves true, then the argument on which the recommendation is based is weak.
Secondly, do viewers actually read movie reviews? The director assumes that advertising movie reviews will attract the attention of viewers. It is possible that more people viewed movies in the previous year than in the past year because of different reasons and not because of reviews from movie reviewers. If viewers do not read reviews as much as the director assumes, then allocating a greater share of the budget to advertising may be a waste of resources. And if this is true, then the recommendation is not reasonable.
In conclusion, although the director seems to be interested in increasing the number of viewers, his recommendation is flawed. Those questions highlighted above need to be answered, and more tangible evidences need to be provided before the recommendation can be considered valid.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-08-29 | Eurus Psycho Version | 55 | view |
| 2023-08-21 | riyarmy | 54 | view |
| 2023-08-14 | Saket Choudhary | 68 | view |
| 2023-08-13 | Fahim Shahriar Khan | 58 | view |
| 2023-08-11 | Tanvi Sanandiya | 55 | 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 any ot 50
- 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 Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree wi 50
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 3 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 1 2
No. of Sentences: 15 15
No. of Words: 278 350
No. of Characters: 1394 1500
No. of Different Words: 131 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.083 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.014 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.907 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 96 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 82 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 60 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 37 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 18.533 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.302 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.6 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.352 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.558 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.083 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, first, hence, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, then, in conclusion, in other words
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 19.6327345309 107% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 12.9520958084 62% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 11.1786427146 45% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 6.0 13.6137724551 44% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 16.0 28.8173652695 56% => OK
Preposition: 40.0 55.5748502994 72% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 16.3942115768 61% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1437.0 2260.96107784 64% => OK
No of words: 278.0 441.139720559 63% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.1690647482 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.08329915638 4.56307096286 89% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.98261312558 2.78398813304 107% => OK
Unique words: 137.0 204.123752495 67% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.492805755396 0.468620217663 105% => OK
syllable_count: 440.1 705.55239521 62% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Article: 3.0 8.76447105788 34% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
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: 18.0 22.8473053892 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 42.4512269159 57.8364921388 73% => OK
Chars per sentence: 95.8 119.503703932 80% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.5333333333 23.324526521 79% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.0 5.70786347227 123% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 6.88822355289 15% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.67664670659 128% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.170514196041 0.218282227539 78% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0631234529237 0.0743258471296 85% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0629845363424 0.0701772020484 90% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.100541409617 0.128457276422 78% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.069810063339 0.0628817314937 111% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.2 14.3799401198 85% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 48.3550499002 110% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 12.197005988 84% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.71 12.5979740519 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.88 8.32208582834 95% => OK
difficult_words: 59.0 98.500998004 60% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 12.3882235529 73% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.1389221557 83% => 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.