"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 given memo from the advertising director of the Super Screen Movie Production Company states that there is a positive response for the movie they produced despite the fallen rate of viewers. So, a generalization of lack of awarness as a problem has been made by the company and to amend this they are concluding to offer greater share of their budget to the advertisement program in order to reach the public. But this whole scenario from the memo has be made without the provision of ample of relavant data. Hence, this arugment is full of the assumption only.
Firstly, the report is mentioned the show the decrease is the number of viewers is said but it is not clear that by exactly what number the inflation is happened. Beside this, the report itself can be readily said to be accurate and authentic one; as it is unknown that by whom the report is carried out and what are the perimeter of that report. So, based on these the conclusion can not be drawn. As a result, it can be said that this information is facetious.
Secondly, percenttage of positive review has been increased but by what number among what total viewers is not been made cleared. The Number of people attended in the report might be less or very small faction with the similar kind of interest in the movie category. This will create a biasness towards the movie fondness resulting a good review in a report. From all the above stated flaws, the memo says that the content of review are not been able to reach the viewers, but this might be not the true case as the reverse might also be happened as no any support information has been provided that suggest the movie might actually be of good quality. Thus, making this another lacuna suggested by the memorandum.
Thirdly, the problem of all this situation is considered to be the lack of awarness due to lack of adverstisement. And, hence they are finally offering the huge amount of share of the budget into the adverstisement so that the public will know the good quality of movies and to uplift the number of viewers. However, this whole suggestion or step is made with the assumption only as a result the outcome that comes after the investment on adverstisement might not create a significant outcome.
Finally, the argument is rife of assumptioon.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-07-25 | rubelmonir | 16 | view |
| 2023-07-25 | rubelmonir | 60 | view |
| 2023-07-23 | Mizanur_Rahman | 50 | view |
| 2023-02-14 | tedyang777 | 60 | view |
| 2022-11-13 | barath002 | 58 | view |
- 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 actual 59
- Critical judgment of work in any given field has little value unless it comes from someone who is an expert in that field 16
- Recently there have been discussions about ending Grove College s century old tradition of all female education by admitting male students into our programs At a recent faculty meeting a majority of faculty members voted in favor of coeducation arguing th 54
- In surveys Mason City residents rank water sports swimming boating and fish ing among their favorite recreational activities The Mason River flowing through the city is rarely used for these pursuits however and the city park department devotes little of 59
- Critical judgment of work in any given field has little value unless it comes from someone who is an expert in that field 50
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 6 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 10 2
No. of Sentences: 17 15
No. of Words: 404 350
No. of Characters: 1848 1500
No. of Different Words: 188 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.483 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.574 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.525 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 123 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 89 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 54 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 30 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 23.765 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 12.832 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.824 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.292 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.292 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.043 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 457, Rule ID: HAVE_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Use past participle here: 'been'.
Suggestion: been
...t this whole scenario from the memo has be made without the provision of ample of ...
^^
Line 2, column 216, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...the report itself can be readily said to be accurate and authentic one; as it is ...
^^
Line 3, column 550, Rule ID: NOW[2]
Message: Did you mean 'now' (=at this moment) instead of 'no' (negation)?
Suggestion: now
...s the reverse might also be happened as no any support information has been provid...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, finally, first, firstly, hence, however, if, second, secondly, so, then, third, thirdly, thus, kind of, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 33.0 19.6327345309 168% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.9520958084 77% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 13.6137724551 73% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 28.0 28.8173652695 97% => OK
Preposition: 56.0 55.5748502994 101% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 16.3942115768 104% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1888.0 2260.96107784 84% => OK
No of words: 404.0 441.139720559 92% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.67326732673 5.12650576532 91% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.48327461151 4.56307096286 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.59353974086 2.78398813304 93% => OK
Unique words: 191.0 204.123752495 94% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.472772277228 0.468620217663 101% => OK
syllable_count: 601.2 705.55239521 85% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 19.7664670659 86% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 22.8473053892 101% => OK
Sentence length SD: 68.8810217383 57.8364921388 119% => OK
Chars per sentence: 111.058823529 119.503703932 93% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.7647058824 23.324526521 102% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.0 5.70786347227 140% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.88822355289 73% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.67664670659 128% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.144577522105 0.218282227539 66% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0452718648606 0.0743258471296 61% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0660716034406 0.0701772020484 94% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0673154545986 0.128457276422 52% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0590827900697 0.0628817314937 94% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.4 14.3799401198 86% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 56.59 48.3550499002 117% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.197005988 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.1 12.5979740519 80% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.53 8.32208582834 102% => OK
difficult_words: 96.0 98.500998004 97% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 12.3882235529 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.1389221557 101% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.