A movie producer sent the following memo to the head of the movie studio.
“We need to increase the funding for the movie Working Title by 10% in order to ensure a quality product. As you know, we are working with a first-time director, whose only previous experience has been shooting commercials for a shampoo company. Since the advertising business is notoriously wasteful, it stands to reason that our director will expect to be able to shoot take after take, without concern for how much time is being spent on any one scene. In addition, while we have saved money by hiring relatively inexperienced assistant producers and directors, this savings in salary will undoubtedly translate to greater expenditures in paying the actors and unionized crew overtime for the extra hours they will spend on the set waiting for the assistant directors and producers to arrange things. If we don’t get this extra money, the movie is virtually assured to be a failure.”
The argument aims to recommend that an increase in the budget of the movie by 10% will result in a quality product and if the budget is not incremented this will result in a definite failure of the movie. This argument is flawed because it is based on several unwarranted assumptions. Primarily it tries to accomplish a direct link between the budget increment and success of the movie. Also, it has statistical flaw and unjustified generalization.
First and foremost the argument assumes that given that advertisement business is wasteful the director being from this industry will squander the movie's budget on retakes. However, this might not be the case because the argument provides no details regarding the work behavior and approach of the director towards film making. There are some bad apples in every industry but it does not mean that the entire basket of apples is rotten. The director might be having good work ethics and he might be an economical film maker. It is not justified to judge his character based on the general conception about the industry. The argument would have been stronger if it had given the information regarding the money spent by the director in his previous ventures or about the approach he wish to follow while making this movie. These evidences are essential in order to justify that the conjecture that the director is notoriously wasteful.
Secondly, even if we assume that the director is wasteful the argument leaves many other questions unanswered. The argument assumes that only 10% increment in the budget will be enough to account for the wastefulness of the director. This might not be true. As there is no data provided by the argument to corroborate this assumption. If the argument had provided us the data such as the total budget of the movie and also the amount of money which is expected to be wasted by the director we would have been in better position to evaluate the argument.
Finally, the argument assumes that the money saved from hiring inexperienced assistant producers and directors is enough to account for the expenditures which will result from overtime of actors and unionized crew. However, this can not be justified without any data regarding the salary of actors ,the crew and the money saved. If the argument had given the information regarding the money saved from making inexperienced hires and the salary of actors the argument would have been more convincing.
Thus in the light of all the aforementioned reasons we can conclude that without the proper and clear data to justify that the increment will be enough to account for the wastefulness of the director. Also,the absence of data regarding money saved by the inexperienced hire and staff salary renders the argument unconvincing.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 783, Rule ID: HE_VERB_AGR[1]
Message: The pronoun 'he' must be used with a third-person verb: 'wishes'.
Suggestion: wishes
...vious ventures or about the approach he wish to follow while making this movie. Thes...
^^^^
Line 7, column 298, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma, but not before the comma
Suggestion: ,
... any data regarding the salary of actors ,the crew and the money saved. If the arg...
^^
Line 9, column 1, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
...ent would have been more convincing. Thus in the light of all the aforementioned ...
^^^^
Line 9, column 206, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma
Suggestion: , the
...r the wastefulness of the director. Also,the absence of data regarding money saved b...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, however, if, regarding, second, secondly, so, thus, while, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 25.0 19.6327345309 127% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.9520958084 116% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 11.1786427146 134% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 13.6137724551 95% => OK
Pronoun: 34.0 28.8173652695 118% => OK
Preposition: 57.0 55.5748502994 103% => OK
Nominalization: 25.0 16.3942115768 152% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2322.0 2260.96107784 103% => OK
No of words: 462.0 441.139720559 105% => OK
Chars per words: 5.02597402597 5.12650576532 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.63618218583 4.56307096286 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.73341574361 2.78398813304 98% => OK
Unique words: 196.0 204.123752495 96% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.424242424242 0.468620217663 91% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 743.4 705.55239521 105% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 0.0 4.22255489022 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 19.7664670659 106% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 54.0982142038 57.8364921388 94% => OK
Chars per sentence: 110.571428571 119.503703932 93% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.0 23.324526521 94% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.42857142857 5.70786347227 78% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 6.88822355289 145% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.67664670659 43% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.118698084365 0.218282227539 54% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0372415639377 0.0743258471296 50% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0406360601555 0.0701772020484 58% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0694721048833 0.128457276422 54% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0312188536597 0.0628817314937 50% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.3 14.3799401198 92% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 48.3550499002 102% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.89 12.5979740519 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.01 8.32208582834 96% => OK
difficult_words: 96.0 98.500998004 97% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 12.3882235529 93% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => 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.