The author states that Super Screen Movie Production Company should increase their budget for marketing and advertising to be able to reach more people and gain profits. This is based on certain evidence provided by the author regarding increase in the number of positive reviews for the movies and lack of public awareness about the good quality movies. However, the argument is based on certain assumptions which make the conclusion nonpersuasive. The author should answer the following questions and provide better evidences for the argument to be cogent.
Firstly, the author fails to answer what kind of movies got positive reviews and what is the percentage of increase in positive reviews. There is no information about the statistics for positive reviews and also for the reduced number of movie-goers for these Super Screen produced movies. Maybe, there are only positive reviews for specific genres of movies like comedy or romance. People prefer to watch these light-hearted movies more than crime thrillers or suspense movies. Super Screen produced movies may be more of the latter kind, and only a few are comedy or romance movies. Moreover, it may be that the number of people giving reviews has increased by let's say 1000. If looked at independently then 1000 is a big number, but if the number of movie-goers is 1000000 then a thousand is a very small increase. Therefore, it becomes a weak argument.
Secondly, what evidence is there that proves the contents are not reaching prospective viewers? It may happen that the reviews are reaching all the prospective viewers but these reviews are not strong enough to make the prospective viewer watch the movie. The reviews might be saying for instance, "It is a good movie, but a one-time watch and too long". This review seems like a good positive review but it is not convincing enough to make others watch the movie. They might rather prefer to watch other movies which have better reviews or wait for the movie to come on OTT sites like Netflix.
Finally, what makes it evident that an increase in budget for advertising will lead to an increase in viewers? It may be that the movies are not well written, or not well directed or not well acted. A success of movie depends on various other factors. It may be that the movie has an actor who does not have a good reputation in public, who is involved in corruption or malpractices. People might not want to watch movies of such person. It also might be that the actors are good but the dialogue writing and direction and VFX are not good enough, then the viewers would not watch the movie just for the sake of actor. Therefore, again the argument becomes weak and does not hold water.
As of right now, the author's argument is weak and has flaws.Therefore, for the argument to be conducive, the author should provide more evidence that answer the questions above.
- 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 50
- Young people should be encouraged to pursue long term realistic goals rather than seek immediate fame and recognition 75
- The following is a memorandum from the business manager of a television station Over the past year our late night program has devoted increased time to national news and less time to weather and local news During this time period most of the complaints re 57
- The following appeared in an editorial in a local newspaper Commuters complain that increased rush hour traffic on Blue Highway between the suburbs and the city center has doubled their commuting time The favored proposal of the motorists lobby is to wide 72
- The following appeared in a letter to the school board in the town of Centerville All students should be required to take the driver s education course at Centerville High School In the past two years several accidents in and around Centerville have invol 60
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 5 2
No. of Sentences: 25 15
No. of Words: 494 350
No. of Characters: 2339 1500
No. of Different Words: 197 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.714 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.735 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.41 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 175 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 110 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 72 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 34 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 19.76 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.246 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.72 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.303 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.491 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.099 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 688, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...t becomes weak and does not hold water. As of right now, the authors argument i...
^^^^^
Line 9, column 23, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
... hold water. As of right now, the authors argument is weak and has flaws.Therefor...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 62, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: Therefore
... authors argument is weak and has flaws.Therefore, for the argument to be conducive, the ...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, firstly, however, if, look, may, moreover, regarding, second, secondly, so, then, therefore, well, for instance, kind of
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 29.0 19.6327345309 148% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.9520958084 108% => OK
Conjunction : 24.0 11.1786427146 215% => Less conjunction wanted
Relative clauses : 13.0 13.6137724551 95% => OK
Pronoun: 25.0 28.8173652695 87% => OK
Preposition: 45.0 55.5748502994 81% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 16.3942115768 104% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2409.0 2260.96107784 107% => OK
No of words: 493.0 441.139720559 112% => OK
Chars per words: 4.88640973631 5.12650576532 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.71206996034 4.56307096286 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.55149194195 2.78398813304 92% => OK
Unique words: 205.0 204.123752495 100% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.415821501014 0.468620217663 89% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 745.2 705.55239521 106% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 4.96107784431 202% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => 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: 25.0 19.7664670659 126% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 39.950048811 57.8364921388 69% => OK
Chars per sentence: 96.36 119.503703932 81% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.72 23.324526521 85% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.88 5.70786347227 103% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 15.0 8.20758483034 183% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 6.88822355289 145% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.67664670659 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.136087456746 0.218282227539 62% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0468851378327 0.0743258471296 63% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0557293764336 0.0701772020484 79% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0774218209447 0.128457276422 60% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0578399891123 0.0628817314937 92% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.5 14.3799401198 80% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 60.65 48.3550499002 125% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 12.197005988 78% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.08 12.5979740519 88% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.69 8.32208582834 92% => OK
difficult_words: 97.0 98.500998004 98% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.9071856287 84% => 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.