GRE Powerprep - Super Screen
The advertising director of the Super Screen movie company argued for a greater share of the company's budget to be dedicated to advertising, based on their belief that the reason for low attendance for Super Screen movies is that customers are unaware of the excellence of these movies, as confirmed by reviewers. This argument is flawed, as a few questions await to be answered in order for the claims in the memo to be sustained.
To begin with, it is questionable whether the reviewers' predilections for a film correlate with its popularity within the general public. Not only are reviewers unlikely to be a representative sample of the local population, their typical likings for arthouse movies with often convoluted plot and meanings do not necessarily align with the public. There are plenty of internationally acclaimed films that do not get appreciated by most people. Therefore, it is unreasonable to expect good reviews to transfer into better sales.
Secondly, it is worth investigating whether the quality of movie is a deterministic factor for whether the customers of Super Screen choose to buy the tickets. By assuming reaching more customers with the excellent reviews will necessarily increase sales, the author neglected other important factors such as price, location, screen time and deals. These factors could potentially be more cost-effective to tackle, if they play a more important role in channeling the desirable attitude of customers' to their desirable purchasing behaviour.
Lastly, the question of whether an extensive monetary investment in advertising is essential for conveying the good reviews to the customers effectively needs to be addressed. Sometimes, a simple alteration in advertising strategy is sufficient to sway customers, which may not even cost more than the original strategy. By equating greater share of budget to more effective advertisement, the director fails to ask the correct question and overlooks the possibility of wasting increased budget due to an inappropriate marketing strategy.
As explained above, the claims made by the author remains unwarranted unless these questions are adequetly answered. The relationship between reviewers' and public opinion, the relationship between liking a film and going to a film, and the relationship between monetary investment and efficacy are critical to the author's argument, and do not seem as simple as presented in this memo.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2016-07-03 | emilyhan0906 | 75 | view |
- Educational institutions should actively encourage their students to choose fields of study that will prepare them for lucrative careers 85
- Society should make efforts to save endangered species only if the potential extinction of those species is the result of human activities. 66
- GRE Powerprep - Super Screen 75
- The increasingly rapid pace of life today causes more problems than it solves.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and suppor 58
- The following appeared in a letter from a homeowner to a friend."Of the two leading real estate firms in our town-Adams Realty and Fitch Realty-Adams Realty is clearly superior. Adams has 40 real estate agents; in contrast, Fitch has 25, many of whom work 75
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 123, Rule ID: GENERAL_XX[1]
Message: Use simply 'public'.
Suggestion: public
...orrelate with its popularity within the general public. Not only are reviewers unlikely to be ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 9, Rule ID: WHETHER[3]
Message: Wordiness: Shorten this phrase to the shortest possible suggestion.
Suggestion: whether; the question whether
...irable purchasing behaviour. Lastly, the question of whether an extensive monetary investment in adv...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 315, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...stment and efficacy are critical to the authors argument, and do not seem as simple as ...
^^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['if', 'lastly', 'look', 'may', 'second', 'secondly', 'so', 'therefore', 'such as', 'to begin with']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.248175182482 0.25644967241 97% => OK
Verbs: 0.158150851582 0.15541462614 102% => OK
Adjectives: 0.111922141119 0.0836205057962 134% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0510948905109 0.0520304965353 98% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0194647201946 0.0272364105082 71% => OK
Prepositions: 0.138686131387 0.125424944231 111% => OK
Participles: 0.0559610705596 0.0416121511921 134% => OK
Conjunctions: 3.12015027787 2.79052419416 112% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0462287104623 0.026700313972 173% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.001811407834 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.111922141119 0.113004496875 99% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.00729927007299 0.0255425247493 29% => Some modal verbs wanted.
WH_determiners: 0.00486618004866 0.0127820249294 38% => Some subClauses wanted starting by 'Which, Who, What, Whom, Whose.....'
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2451.0 2731.13054187 90% => OK
No of words: 378.0 446.07635468 85% => OK
Chars per words: 6.48412698413 6.12365571057 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.40933352052 4.57801047555 96% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.439153439153 0.378187486979 116% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.351851851852 0.287650121315 122% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.269841269841 0.208842608468 129% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.206349206349 0.135150697306 153% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.12015027787 2.79052419416 112% => OK
Unique words: 201.0 207.018472906 97% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.531746031746 0.469332199767 113% => OK
Word variations: 58.6862277221 52.1807786196 112% => OK
How many sentences: 14.0 20.039408867 70% => OK
Sentence length: 27.0 23.2022227129 116% => OK
Sentence length SD: 64.37771195 57.7814097925 111% => OK
Chars per sentence: 175.071428571 141.986410481 123% => OK
Words per sentence: 27.0 23.2022227129 116% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.714285714286 0.724660767414 99% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 3.58251231527 84% => OK
Readability: 62.1851851852 51.9672348444 120% => OK
Elegance: 1.93617021277 1.8405768891 105% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0428563535483 0.441005458295 10% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.121108879912 0.135418324435 89% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.05350647596 0.0829849096947 64% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.617270715523 0.58762219726 105% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.15867978008 0.147661913831 107% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.019019585112 0.193483328276 10% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0387063576213 0.0970749176394 40% => The sentences are too close to each other.
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.345519342366 0.42659136922 81% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0569246299399 0.0774707102158 73% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0325539748769 0.312017818177 10% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.040218335476 0.0698173142475 58% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.33743842365 108% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 6.87684729064 44% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.82512315271 41% => OK
Positive topic words: 7.0 6.46551724138 108% => OK
Negative topic words: 2.0 5.36822660099 37% => OK
Neutral topic words: 2.0 2.82389162562 71% => OK
Total topic words: 11.0 14.657635468 75% => OK
---------------------
Rates: 75.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.5 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 to cover all aspects.