"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 advertising company director of the Super Screen Movie Production Company has advised allocating a larger share of its budget towards advertising. While it is possible that the stated assumption might be true, it is based upon assumptions of dubious currency and may or may not be valid. Therefore, the company needs to address some questions about its possible flaws.
Firstly, the company needs to ask about the number of people who participated in the reviews. It could be possible that the only 6 people gave a review of which the majority supported the movie. In this scenario, the claim of the increase in positive reviews of the movie will be seriously flawed as only a superficial amount of people took part in the review. Therefore, the company needs to investigate on this issue.
Moreover, the company needs to find out what exactly was the percentage increase of the positive review. If the Super Screen produced movies originally received 8% positive reviews previous year and they received 10% positive this year, this message is unlikely to increase public attendance for the movies. Making better movies would likely increase the attendance.
Furthermore, the company needs to evaluate the reviews obtained by their marketing department to their potential rivals department. Maybe the number of people going to movies is at a universal decline. This may be due to technological advancement and availability of movies on the internet. If this is the scenario, promoting a greater share towards budgeting is unlikely to help. Boosting public interest in watching movies at the theatre than advertising their positive reviews could make the cut.
Finally, it would be beneficially for the company to evaluate what promotes the audience to watch a movie. It can be possible that Super Screen productions were previously known for their action movies but have now shifted to subtle romantic movies. This might be the reason why the public is less willing to go to see their movies.
In conclusion, there are many aspects and questions that Super Screen Production Company need to address before going ahead with the advertising directors plan. They need to assess the actual number of people participating at their reviews to amounting the current willing of the public to attend their movies. With the conforming evidence the argument begins to coherent. However without it, the argument fall apart.
| 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 movies 29
- The following appeared in a letter from a firm providing investment advice to a client. “Homes in the northeastern United States, where winters are typically cold, have traditionally used oil as their major fuel for heating. Last year that region experi 75
Comments
Essay evaluation report
argument 1 -- not OK
argument 2 -- not OK
argument 3 -- OK
argument 4 -- OK
--------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 2.5 out of 6
Category: Poor Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 22 15
No. of Words: 391 350
No. of Characters: 1984 1500
No. of Different Words: 191 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.447 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.074 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.666 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 161 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 115 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 80 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 41 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 17.773 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.667 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.591 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.297 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.297 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.071 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 91, Rule ID: ADVISE_VBG[1]
Message: Verbs 'advise' and 'remind' are used with infinitive: 'to allocate'.
Suggestion: to allocate
...en Movie Production Company has advised allocating a larger share of its budget towards ad...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 6, column 374, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: However,
...idence the argument begins to coherent. However without it, the argument fall apart.
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, firstly, furthermore, however, if, may, moreover, so, therefore, while, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 19.6327345309 92% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.9520958084 100% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 11.1786427146 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 6.0 13.6137724551 44% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 28.0 28.8173652695 97% => OK
Preposition: 53.0 55.5748502994 95% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 16.3942115768 73% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2032.0 2260.96107784 90% => OK
No of words: 391.0 441.139720559 89% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.19693094629 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.44676510885 4.56307096286 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.72442507762 2.78398813304 98% => OK
Unique words: 192.0 204.123752495 94% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.49104859335 0.468620217663 105% => OK
syllable_count: 636.3 705.55239521 90% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 4.96107784431 161% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 19.7664670659 111% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 22.8473053892 74% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 40.671253072 57.8364921388 70% => OK
Chars per sentence: 92.3636363636 119.503703932 77% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.7727272727 23.324526521 76% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.81818181818 5.70786347227 84% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 16.0 8.20758483034 195% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 6.88822355289 15% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.67664670659 107% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.265168196556 0.218282227539 121% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0759458445229 0.0743258471296 102% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0739274995871 0.0701772020484 105% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.147566027856 0.128457276422 115% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0762076974071 0.0628817314937 121% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.9 14.3799401198 83% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 54.22 48.3550499002 112% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 12.197005988 81% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.58 12.5979740519 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.15 8.32208582834 98% => OK
difficult_words: 91.0 98.500998004 92% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 12.3882235529 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 11.1389221557 79% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.9071856287 84% => 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.