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."
The writer has presented some facts and come to the conclusion that Super Screen should allocate greater share of its budget to reach the public through advertising in the coming year, so that it can restore its viewership. However, the argument is rife with holes and unwarranted assumptions, and thus, not strong enough to buttress the preceded conclusion.
First of all, the argument is based on a questionable assumption that positive reviews from movie reviewers is a strong factor for people to watch a particular movie. However, it is possible that people’s decision to watch a movie has nothing to do with those reviews. For all we know, people may have been ignoring those reviews altogether even if they have access to it. If this is the case, advertising about positive reviews may not take people to the theater to watch the movies. Also, the author has not given any information about the movie reviewers. People may prefer one reviewer over the other, and that the reviewer vaunting about the movies is not the one whose judgment sways people in any way.
Furthermore, there is no data or any information of the sort regarding the number of movie goers in the previous year. Given that, it is possible that the number of viewers may not have significantly decreased, and that there is no dire need to spend in any promotional activities. For example the viewership in the year before could have been 20000 and this year it decrease by 20. Significant spending does not seem justifiable for negligent number of decrease in viewership as presented above.
Also, various factors could have contributed to decrease in number of viewers attending the Super Screen produced movies. People may no longer be interested in the themes recurrently portrayed in Super Screen movies. There could have been a hike in the price of movie tickets and people were not willing to spend extra bucks on movies.
To recapitulate, there are still some unexplored avenues in the argument due to with the conclusion seems feeble. Increasing the budget for advertising might generate the desired results, but a detailed analysis of the aforementioned areas is required to come up with a concrete conclusion on the matter.
- The best way to solve environmental problems caused by consumer-generated waste is for towns and cities to impose strict limits on the amount of trash they will accept from each household. 83
- Woven baskets characterized by a particular distinctive pattern have previously been found only in the immediate vicinity of the prehistoric village of Palea and therefore were believed to have been made only by the Palean people. Recently, however, archa 83
- A nation should require all its students to study the same national curriculum until they enter college 83
- People who make decisions based on emotions and later justify it with reasons are poor decision makers. 40
- “As people rely more and more on technology to solve problems, the ability for humans to think for themselves will surely deteriorate.”Discuss the extent to which you agree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In d 83
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 368, Rule ID: IT_VBZ[1]
Message: Did you mean 'decreases'?
Suggestion: decreases
... could have been 20000 and this year it decrease by 20. Significant spending does not se...
^^^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'but', 'first', 'furthermore', 'however', 'if', 'may', 'regarding', 'so', 'still', 'thus', 'for example', 'first of all']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.240786240786 0.25644967241 94% => OK
Verbs: 0.154791154791 0.15541462614 100% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0737100737101 0.0836205057962 88% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0565110565111 0.0520304965353 109% => OK
Pronouns: 0.022113022113 0.0272364105082 81% => OK
Prepositions: 0.127764127764 0.125424944231 102% => OK
Participles: 0.044226044226 0.0416121511921 106% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.75032237967 2.79052419416 99% => OK
Infinitives: 0.036855036855 0.026700313972 138% => OK
Particles: 0.002457002457 0.001811407834 136% => OK
Determiners: 0.125307125307 0.113004496875 111% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.027027027027 0.0255425247493 106% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.002457002457 0.0127820249294 19% => Some subClauses wanted starting by 'Which, Who, What, Whom, Whose.....'
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2225.0 2731.13054187 81% => OK
No of words: 370.0 446.07635468 83% => OK
Chars per words: 6.01351351351 6.12365571057 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.38581623665 4.57801047555 96% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.348648648649 0.378187486979 92% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.256756756757 0.287650121315 89% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.194594594595 0.208842608468 93% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.110810810811 0.135150697306 82% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.75032237967 2.79052419416 99% => OK
Unique words: 185.0 207.018472906 89% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.5 0.469332199767 107% => OK
Word variations: 53.3524923419 52.1807786196 102% => OK
How many sentences: 17.0 20.039408867 85% => OK
Sentence length: 21.7647058824 23.2022227129 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 37.0715197673 57.7814097925 64% => OK
Chars per sentence: 130.882352941 141.986410481 92% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.7647058824 23.2022227129 94% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.764705882353 0.724660767414 106% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 3.58251231527 28% => OK
Readability: 47.440381558 51.9672348444 91% => OK
Elegance: 1.76842105263 1.8405768891 96% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.450016438385 0.441005458295 102% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.169412360482 0.135418324435 125% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0449757904824 0.0829849096947 54% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.607700342695 0.58762219726 103% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.129726914123 0.147661913831 88% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.194337370262 0.193483328276 100% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0846168081224 0.0970749176394 87% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.341940126031 0.42659136922 80% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0608614234984 0.0774707102158 79% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.299505478824 0.312017818177 96% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0281349453537 0.0698173142475 40% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.33743842365 84% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.87684729064 73% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.82512315271 104% => OK
Positive topic words: 7.0 6.46551724138 108% => OK
Negative topic words: 5.0 5.36822660099 93% => OK
Neutral topic words: 5.0 2.82389162562 177% => OK
Total topic words: 17.0 14.657635468 116% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3 Out of 6 -- The score is based on the average performance of 20,000 argument essays. This e-grader is not smart enough to check on arguments.
---------------------
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.