The following appeared as part of a column in a popular entertainment magazine.
"The producers of the forthcoming movie 3003 will be most likely to maximize their profits if they are willing to pay Robin Good several million dollars to star in it ? even though that amount is far more than any other person involved with the movie will make. After all, Robin has in the past been paid a similar amount to work in several films that were very financially successful."
The argument asserts that the producer of movie 3003 can maximize their profits if they are willing to pay Robin Good millions of dollars to star in the movie. Stated in this way, the statement fails to mention several key factors, on the basis of which it could be evaluated. The argument relies on unstated assumptions and unreliable logic. Hence, the assertion of the passage is weak, unconvincing and not well reasoned.
First, the argument readily assumes that whether Robin Good is the most important factor for the financial success of the movie 3003. However, This assumption is problematic and not substantiated. There could be other more critical factors that determine the success of the movie, such as financial budget for the movie, the successful director, and overall demand for the recent movie market. In this case, the producers may not have to spend tremendous money on a single actor, but rather invest the money to other more important aspects. Moreover, the argument does not illustrate whether Robin Good is suitable for the genre of the movie 3003. If movie 3003 is an action movie, but Robin Good has only acted in romantic movies, it would be a gamble for the producers to enroll him in the movie production. Therefore, Robin Good may not be a key factor for the success of the film. The argument could have been much more reasonable if it explicitly explained why Robin Good is so important for this movie.
Second, the argument claims that several million dollars is worth paying Robin Good for the movie. This is again a weak and unsupported claim as the statement does not provide any information about the work he would do. Althought the author of the magazine says that Robin Good was paid a similar amount to work in some other successful films, it may not be reasonable to pay him such tremendous dollars if he only appears few minutes in this movie while he acted the most part of the other movies. It the author had provided any reason for the producers to pay Robin Good for the amount of money, the argument would have been strengthened even further.
In conclusion, the argument fails to mention neither whether Robin Good is the key factor for financial succeess of the movie 3003, nor present sound reason to pay him millions of dollars to him for the movie, and thus, the conclusion of the passage is called into question. If the article answered the question raised above, it could have considerably strengthened the claim of the argument.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... unconvincing and not well reasoned. First, the argument readily assumes that...
^^^^
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...Good is so important for this movie. Second, the argument claims that several...
^^^^
Line 7, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...have been strengthened even further. In conclusion, the argument fails to men...
^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['but', 'first', 'hence', 'however', 'if', 'may', 'moreover', 'second', 'so', 'then', 'therefore', 'thus', 'well', 'while', 'in conclusion', 'such as']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.245202558635 0.25644967241 96% => OK
Verbs: 0.142857142857 0.15541462614 92% => OK
Adjectives: 0.089552238806 0.0836205057962 107% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0533049040512 0.0520304965353 102% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0319829424307 0.0272364105082 117% => OK
Prepositions: 0.121535181237 0.125424944231 97% => OK
Participles: 0.0298507462687 0.0416121511921 72% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.51161160518 2.79052419416 90% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0255863539446 0.026700313972 96% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.001811407834 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.138592750533 0.113004496875 123% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0234541577825 0.0255425247493 92% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.00639658848614 0.0127820249294 50% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2500.0 2731.13054187 92% => OK
No of words: 428.0 446.07635468 96% => OK
Chars per words: 5.84112149533 6.12365571057 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.548423998 4.57801047555 99% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.331775700935 0.378187486979 88% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.242990654206 0.287650121315 84% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.161214953271 0.208842608468 77% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.102803738318 0.135150697306 76% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.51161160518 2.79052419416 90% => OK
Unique words: 185.0 207.018472906 89% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.432242990654 0.469332199767 92% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
Word variations: 46.7342662077 52.1807786196 90% => OK
How many sentences: 18.0 20.039408867 90% => OK
Sentence length: 23.7777777778 23.2022227129 102% => OK
Sentence length SD: 60.282257898 57.7814097925 104% => OK
Chars per sentence: 138.888888889 141.986410481 98% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.7777777778 23.2022227129 102% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.888888888889 0.724660767414 123% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.14285714286 78% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 3.58251231527 84% => OK
Readability: 48.0768431983 51.9672348444 93% => OK
Elegance: 1.73831775701 1.8405768891 94% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.532413132856 0.441005458295 121% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.134331996292 0.135418324435 99% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0704854678023 0.0829849096947 85% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.61006530275 0.58762219726 104% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.161871590912 0.147661913831 110% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.249932715577 0.193483328276 129% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.132782627189 0.0970749176394 137% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.626577581348 0.42659136922 147% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0379209667812 0.0774707102158 49% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.441796558323 0.312017818177 142% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0480845360028 0.0698173142475 69% => The ideas may be duplicated in paragraphs.
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 8.33743842365 144% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.87684729064 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.82512315271 0% => More neutral sentences wanted.
Positive topic words: 12.0 6.46551724138 186% => OK
Negative topic words: 3.0 5.36822660099 56% => OK
Neutral topic words: 0.0 2.82389162562 0% => More neutral topic words wanted.
Total topic words: 15.0 14.657635468 102% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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: This is not the final score. 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.