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

In the memo written by the advertising director of the Super Screem Movie Production Company, the director concludes that the problem of decrease in viewers of their movies last year is asssociated with public lack of awareness that good quality movies are available- he therefore recommends that a great share of the company's budget be allocated to advitising in the following year. His reasons were because he observed that that reviewers responded positively to the reviews sent out. However, before this recommendation can be fully evaluated, the following two questions need to be answered.

First of all, are their certainties that the reviews about specific movies by super screen movies are given to the right audience and are truthfully conducted? Perhaps the person in charge of sending the reviews to reviewers never sent them out but decided to bring up a scheme to fill them himself, to give a false representation of what people think out there. Even if the reviews were actually done by the general public, what if the reviewers just gave a positive feedback without having even watched the movies. Until this question is answered, the director's recommendation may be faulty.

Second, are the movies produced in the Super Screen Movie Production company last year all good movies? The director holds a general assumption that because there are positive reviews from reviewers, about specific movies, therefore, all movies produced are good movies. Perhaps, the specific movies that are reviewed are the only good movies produced last year by the company. Also, it may be that people stopped coming because that have seen bad movies in the company and would not want to waste money to watch another. If this is true, then the recommendation by the director does not hold.

In conclusion, the sdvertising director's argument is quite flawed. In other to best evaluate the recommendation provided by the director, it is necessary that the above questions will have to be answered and more evidence provided ( perhaps a face to face review can be done).

Votes
Average: 5.1 (2 votes)
Essay Categories

Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 292, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...s are available- he therefore recommends that a great share of the companys budge...
^^
Line 1, column 489, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ded positively to the reviews sent out. However, before this recommendation can ...
^^
Line 3, column 410, Rule ID: GENERAL_XX[1]
Message: Use simply 'public'.
Suggestion: public
...f the reviews were actually done by the general public, what if the reviewers just gave a posi...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 555, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'directors'' or 'director's'?
Suggestion: directors'; director's
...s. Until this question is answered, the directors recommendation may be faulty. Secon...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 579, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...s answered, the directors recommendation may be faulty. Second, are the movies...
^^
Line 5, column 185, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... that because there are positive reviews from reviewers, about specific movies, t...
^^
Line 5, column 401, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ear by the company. Also, it may be that people stopped coming because that have ...
^^
Line 7, column 231, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...o be answered and more evidence provided perhaps a face to face review can be don...
^^

Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, first, however, if, may, second, so, then, therefore, in conclusion, first of all

Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments

Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 23.0 19.6327345309 117% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 12.9520958084 54% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 11.1786427146 36% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 28.8173652695 83% => OK
Preposition: 47.0 55.5748502994 85% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 16.3942115768 73% => OK

Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1734.0 2260.96107784 77% => OK
No of words: 338.0 441.139720559 77% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.13017751479 5.12650576532 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.28774723029 4.56307096286 94% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.71274510964 2.78398813304 97% => OK
Unique words: 174.0 204.123752495 85% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.514792899408 0.468620217663 110% => OK
syllable_count: 549.0 705.55239521 78% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK

A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.76447105788 68% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.22255489022 166% => OK

Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 19.7664670659 71% => 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: 24.0 22.8473053892 105% => OK
Sentence length SD: 79.1820751206 57.8364921388 137% => OK
Chars per sentence: 123.857142857 119.503703932 104% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.1428571429 23.324526521 104% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.28571428571 5.70786347227 128% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 8.0 5.25449101796 152% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 6.88822355289 44% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.67664670659 43% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?

Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.241424081282 0.218282227539 111% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.089275978583 0.0743258471296 120% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.100635272334 0.0701772020484 143% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.142787453228 0.128457276422 111% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0981901177183 0.0628817314937 156% => OK

Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.8 14.3799401198 103% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 47.12 48.3550499002 97% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 12.197005988 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.77 12.5979740519 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.33 8.32208582834 100% => OK
difficult_words: 75.0 98.500998004 76% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 15.0 12.3882235529 121% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.1389221557 104% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.9071856287 126% => OK
What are above readability scores?

---------------------

Rates: 62.5 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.75 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.

Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 4 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 4 2
No. of Sentences: 14 15
No. of Words: 338 350
No. of Characters: 1692 1500
No. of Different Words: 165 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.288 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.006 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.661 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 127 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 96 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 66 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 38 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 24.143 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 13.368 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.786 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.371 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.567 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.113 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5