The memo from the advertising director of Super Screen Movie Production Company concluded that more budget should be allocated towards advertising of the movies produced by Super Screen company. The director came to this conclusion based on the evidence that although critics are giving good reviews to the movies, less people attended the movies than in any previous years. While this observation might be true, the conclusion is based on some unwarranted assumptions. And to evaluate the suggestion of the director, three questions must be answered first.
First of all, was any survey conducted on why people are not coming to see the movies? Although, critics have given good reviews for the movies, critics represent only small part of a general public. It might be possible that the story line is good, but the movies lack sensationalism. Perhaps the movies are more informative rather than entertaining, which is why the critics like the movies more than the public. General populations' liking can be very different from the critics. So, to evaluate the validity of the argument the director has provided, he must provide evidence against the scenarios stated above.
Secondly, the director needs to provide evidence that the only factor holding the success of the movies is lack of advertisement. There might be other factors at work which is preventing people from attending the movies. Maybe the theaters that are screening the movies are not accomodating enough for the public. It might be possible that there are not enough facilities in the theaters that other big theaters have. If people are not comfortable while attending a movie, they might be reluncant to visit for the next movie. If any other factors other than advertisement are at play in this situation which is making the public less interested to attend the movies, then the author's argument will be severely weakened.
Thirdly, there might be a chance that the percentage of positive reviews went up due to a decrease in the total number of reviewers. Since, less public are attending the movie, it is possible that the total number of reviewers has also decreased, which resulted in the increase in percentage of positive reviews. Only a small numbers reviewers that are interested came to attend the movie while other critics did not even attend the movie. So, to evaluate the validity of the argument, the author must provide evidence that the total number of reviewers has been constant. Otherwise, his assumption that the quality of the movies are good holds no water.
In conclusion, the recommendation from the director is flawed due to its dependence on several unwarranted assumptions. If the director can provide evidence against the questions or situations stated above in support of his argument, only then it will possible to evaluate the validity of the recommendation.
- Governments should spend money on railways rather than roads To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement 61
- Some people believe that children should study all subjects at school while others think they should only study subjects they are good at or find interesting Discuss both views and give your opinion Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant ex 67
- The charts below show the percentage of water used for different purposes in six areas of the world Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant 67
- Nowadays people waste a lot of food that was bought from shops and restaurants Why do you think people waste food What can be done to reduce the amount of food they throw away 70
- Financial education should be a mandatory component of the school program To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement 73
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 316, Rule ID: FEWER_LESS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'fewer'? The noun people is countable.
Suggestion: fewer
... are giving good reviews to the movies, less people attended the movies than in any ...
^^^^
Line 3, column 185, Rule ID: GENERAL_XX[1]
Message: Use simply 'public'.
Suggestion: public
... critics represent only small part of a general public. It might be possible that the story li...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 677, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...terested to attend the movies, then the authors argument will be severely weakened. ...
^^^^^^^
Line 8, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...of the movies are good holds no water. In conclusion, the recommendation from t...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, if, may, second, secondly, so, then, third, thirdly, while, in conclusion, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 31.0 19.5258426966 159% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.4196629213 113% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 14.8657303371 20% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 16.0 11.3162921348 141% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 33.0505617978 73% => OK
Preposition: 55.0 58.6224719101 94% => OK
Nominalization: 19.0 12.9106741573 147% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2412.0 2235.4752809 108% => OK
No of words: 467.0 442.535393258 106% => OK
Chars per words: 5.16488222698 5.05705443957 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.64867537961 4.55969084622 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.74564965768 2.79657885939 98% => OK
Unique words: 199.0 215.323595506 92% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.426124197002 0.4932671777 86% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 762.3 704.065955056 108% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 6.24550561798 96% => OK
Article: 6.0 4.99550561798 120% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 3.10617977528 129% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.77640449438 113% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.38483146067 68% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 20.2370786517 114% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 23.0359550562 87% => OK
Sentence length SD: 38.1962398807 60.3974514979 63% => OK
Chars per sentence: 104.869565217 118.986275619 88% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.3043478261 23.4991977007 86% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.5652173913 5.21951772744 87% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 7.80617977528 51% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 10.2758426966 107% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 5.13820224719 136% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.83258426966 103% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.241455794377 0.243740707755 99% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0736507761662 0.0831039109588 89% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0936259291989 0.0758088955206 124% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.147517312176 0.150359130593 98% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0985043583731 0.0667264976115 148% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.0 14.1392134831 92% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 48.8420337079 105% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.1743820225 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.65 12.1639044944 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.84 8.38706741573 93% => OK
difficult_words: 95.0 100.480337079 95% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 11.8971910112 92% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.2143820225 89% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.7820224719 110% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.