"According to a recent report by 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 last year. Clearly, the content of these reviews is not reaching enough of our prospective viewers. Thus, the problem lies not in the quality of our movies but with public's lack of awareness that movies of good quality are available. Super Screen should therefore allocate a greater quantity of its budget next year to reaching the public through advertising."
The author states that allocating a greater share of the budget, in the coming year, to advertising would solve its conundrum of fewer people attending Super Screen movies. I do not concede with this conclusion due to its baseless assumptions and lack of evidence.
Firstly, the marketing report cannot be believed. It does not state proper statistics to go by. Super Screen(SS) productions may need to hire a statistics consultant to guarantee that the reports of the marketing team are correct. Fewer people attending could be because the number of shows were reduced or the theatres had lesser capacity for the audience.
Secondly, the author fallaciously assumes that their movie quality is good. In reality, they have received good reveiews for only specific movies. Majority of the movies can still be below the mark. Hence, they need to improve in areas of direction, screenplay, script to give a better cinema to the audience to gather more crowd.
Also, the author wrongly assumes that the public is unaware of the specific good reviews. The audience may know about the reviews and still not want to come because of the bad facilities, overpriced tickets or even disinterest in the theme of the movie. SS may be producing only slapstick comedies and the audience may want biographies or dramas! SS has to consider these factors to get larger numbers.
And, SS has to consider many other methods like distributing freebies, good publicity, discounts etc to reach out to the public. Simply advertising their positive reviews would never bring the lions share to the theatre. Providing a discount for family viewing would bring in larger crowds than simply advertising uninteresting facts.
In conclusion, the author must bolster his argument with facts and statistics to prove his point. Otherwise, I do not concur with his idea to bring in more crowd for SS productions.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2017-08-05 | Naruto Uzumaki | 66 | view |
| 2018-07-29 | mantav | 35 | view |
| 2018-06-26 | shivanidalal | 23 | view |
| 2020-08-27 | rishabh00100 | 90 | view |
| 2018-02-05 | Vkch | 75 | view |
- The following appeared in a memorandum written by the vice president of Nature's Way, a chain of stores selling health food and other health-related products."Previous experience has shown that our stores are most profitable in areas where residents are h 75
- The following is a recommendation from the Board of Directors of Monarch Books."We recommend that Monarch Books open a cafe in its store. Monarch, having been in business at the same location for more than twenty years, has a large customer base because i 85
- Issue topic:"Some people believe it is often necessary, even desirable, for political leaders to withold information from the public. Others believe that the public has a right to be fully informed." 88
- The following appeared in a letter to the editor of a local newspaper in Masontown:" If we want to save money on municipal garbage disposal fees, we need to encourage our residents to recycle more. Last year, our neighboring town, Hayesworth, passed a law 90
- Claim: Universities should require every student to take a variety of courses outside the student's major field of study.Reason: Acquiring knowleadge of various academic disciplines is the best way to become truly educated. 88
Sentence: In reality, they have received good reveiews for only specific movies.
Error: reveiews Suggestion: reviews
flaws:
No. of Words: 309 350
No. of Different Words: 175 200
Avg. Sentence Length: 16.263 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.042 7.5
Attribute Value Ideal
Score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 1 2
No. of Sentences: 19 15
No. of Words: 309 350
No. of Characters: 1529 1500
No. of Different Words: 175 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.193 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.948 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.601 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 114 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 82 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 57 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 34 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 16.263 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.042 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.474 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.282 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.576 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.072 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 6 5