“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.”
Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the recommendation and the argument on which it is based are reasonable. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the recommendation.
The memo from the advertising director follows the belief that by spending more on the advertising and promotion of the movie, the number of people watching the Super Screen-produced movies will increase. He concludes this based on the recent report from their marketing department which underlies that there has been a decline in the people watching Super Screen-produced movies as compared to any other year despite the increase in the number of positive reviews for the specified movie. Apparently by increasing the amount spent on advertising the company can ensure that the prospective viewers can be targeted and be more informed about their movies. The conclusion seems to be fallaciously based on the facts presented and lacks reasonability. Before going ahead with this plan, the Super Screen needs to address some questions about the possible flaws with the conclusion.
To begin with, the question that needs to be addressed is the lack of cogency of the report. The report does not consider the reason behind people not watching the movies. It doesn’t effectively relate the decline in the number of people not watching the movies produced by them, instead, it vaguely concludes through the use of ambiguous words. To get rid of this ambiguity, the company could conduct other surveys with coherently elucidated questions, so as to establish a more concrete relationship between the reasons behind the decline.
Another possible question that requires attention is the total number of people watching movies produced by all the companies. Super Screens would have a comprehensive overview of their current standing by comparing the number of people attending movies produced by other companies to the ones produced by them. If the number of movie goers is declining as a whole then spending more to promote their own film would not fulfil the purpose of increasing the viewers of the Super Screen produced movies. Instead, they should focus on attracting more viewers to the theatres by underlining the entertainment aspect attached to the experience of movie watching.
Finally, the company needs to check whether the movies produced by them are palatable to the senses of the general audience. To elaborate, there is a possibility that the movies produced by them could garner a number of positive reviews but the theatrical nuances of the movie might not be comprehensible to the general audience as compared to the pundit reviewers. If this is the case, then the company could focus more on movies appealing to the sense of the general public to attract more number of viewers.
To conclude, before realizing the director’s plan, Super Screen Company should focus on an inclusive analysis of the situation at hand. They should establish a more tangible relationship through comprehensive surveys and analyse other reasons for the decline of the number of movie watchers, instead of concluding based on one reason. They should also check whether the themes of the movies produced by them is in line with the taste of the general audience. By addressing such questions Super Screen Company can increase the number of people watching their movies.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-12-07 | Venkateshwar | 50 | view |
| 2019-11-25 | Venkateshwar | 23 | view |
| 2019-11-25 | Smrithi B R | 33 | view |
| 2019-11-09 | sampath srini | 50 | view |
| 2019-11-01 | harshalg007 | 42 | view |
- “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 movie 58
- “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 movie 50
- “When someone achieves greatness in any field such as the arts, science, politics, or business that person’s achievements are more important than any of his or her personal faults.” 16
- “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 movie 50
- “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 movie 58
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 459, Rule ID: SO_AS_TO[1]
Message: Use simply 'to'
Suggestion: to
...s with coherently elucidated questions, so as to establish a more concrete relationship ...
^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 461, Rule ID: GENERAL_XX[1]
Message: Use simply 'public'.
Suggestion: public
...on movies appealing to the sense of the general public to attract more number of viewers. To ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'apparently', 'but', 'finally', 'if', 'so', 'then', 'as to', 'to begin with']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.253164556962 0.25644967241 99% => OK
Verbs: 0.162748643761 0.15541462614 105% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0632911392405 0.0836205057962 76% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0415913200723 0.0520304965353 80% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0289330922242 0.0272364105082 106% => OK
Prepositions: 0.150090415913 0.125424944231 120% => OK
Participles: 0.0723327305606 0.0416121511921 174% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.79957963786 2.79052419416 100% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0343580470163 0.026700313972 129% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.001811407834 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.146473779385 0.113004496875 130% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0253164556962 0.0255425247493 99% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.00542495479204 0.0127820249294 42% => Some subClauses wanted starting by 'Which, Who, What, Whom, Whose.....'
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 3172.0 2731.13054187 116% => OK
No of words: 511.0 446.07635468 115% => OK
Chars per words: 6.20743639922 6.12365571057 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.75450408675 4.57801047555 104% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.418786692759 0.378187486979 111% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.309197651663 0.287650121315 107% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.215264187867 0.208842608468 103% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.12915851272 0.135150697306 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.79957963786 2.79052419416 100% => OK
Unique words: 217.0 207.018472906 105% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.424657534247 0.469332199767 90% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
Word variations: 48.4612093646 52.1807786196 93% => OK
How many sentences: 20.0 20.039408867 100% => OK
Sentence length: 25.55 23.2022227129 110% => OK
Sentence length SD: 51.0004656841 57.7814097925 88% => OK
Chars per sentence: 158.6 141.986410481 112% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.55 23.2022227129 110% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.45 0.724660767414 62% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 3.58251231527 56% => OK
Readability: 56.4697651663 51.9672348444 109% => OK
Elegance: 2.03875968992 1.8405768891 111% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.420783899009 0.441005458295 95% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.189131111948 0.135418324435 140% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0782245764667 0.0829849096947 94% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.695121444795 0.58762219726 118% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.090859048129 0.147661913831 62% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.212617768425 0.193483328276 110% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0735679561653 0.0970749176394 76% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.637228163215 0.42659136922 149% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0275468801302 0.0774707102158 36% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.318437512613 0.312017818177 102% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0563168792448 0.0698173142475 81% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 15.0 8.33743842365 180% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 6.87684729064 15% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.82512315271 83% => OK
Positive topic words: 14.0 6.46551724138 217% => OK
Negative topic words: 1.0 5.36822660099 19% => More negative topic words wanted.
Neutral topic words: 4.0 2.82389162562 142% => OK
Total topic words: 19.0 14.657635468 130% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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 by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.