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 author states that, to make movie work and to improve its quality, they need to increase its funding by ten percent. There are few flaws in this argument.
First, the author assumes a casual relation between increase of funding for the movie and its quality product. This casual relation is purely on the basis of assumption,as author fails to provide any evidence or data as support for the cause and effect relation between quality of movie and reason for increased funding on movie.
Second, the author uses a generalization for a commercial advertisement director. Author generalizes the work of first-time director without giving evidence of any of his/her personal data or personal work.
Third, the author also assumes , that expenditure on extra fees of actors and unionized crew will be more than the cost saved by hiring inexperienced assistant producers and directors. Author fails to provide any data of expenditure and cost as evidence for this assumption.
In addition, author again states a casual relationship between extra funding for movie and assured failure of movie. Author again fails to provide any support for this casual relationship between funding and performance of movie.
In conclusion, author's argument is not well reasoned and lacking evidence and data. Author can make it logically acceptable by providing more detail on the relationship between quality,performance of movie and proposal of its increased funding.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-02-05 | yogeshrp2498 | 33 | view |
| 2018-08-24 | Dheeraj2202 | 49 | view |
| 2018-07-31 | syedfaizan | 55 | view |
| 2018-07-24 | gkiran292 | 69 | view |
| 2018-07-19 | arpitmotwani | 39 | view |
- The real talent of musician cannot accurately be assessed until the musician has been dead for several decades, so that his or her fame does not interfere with honest assessment. 50
- There should be a same national curriculum for students until they enter college 50
- The tufted groundhog lives in the coastal wetlands of west lansburg. ancient record suggests that the tufted groundhog once were numbered in the millions. since they were declared a wildlife sanctuary in 2004, development along the western coastland has b 52
- 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 33
- A person who knowingly commits a crime has broken the social contract and should not retain any civil rights or the right to benefit from his or her own labor 50
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 18, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...aws in this argument. First, the author assumes a casual relation between increa...
^^
Line 2, column 169, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma
Suggestion: , as
...ion is purely on the basis of assumption,as author fails to provide any evidence or...
^^^
Line 3, column 157, Rule ID: OF_ANY_OF[1]
Message: Consider simply using 'of' instead.
Suggestion: of
...t-time director without giving evidence of any of his/her personal data or personal work....
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 159, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...time director without giving evidence of any of his/her personal data or personal...
^^
Line 4, column 31, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma, but not before the comma
Suggestion: ,
...al work. Third, the author also assumes , that expenditure on extra fees of actor...
^^
Line 6, column 185, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma
Suggestion: , performance
...tail on the relationship between quality,performance of movie and proposal of its increased ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, second, so, third, well, in addition, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 4.0 19.6327345309 20% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 12.9520958084 23% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 11.1786427146 125% => OK
Relative clauses : 2.0 13.6137724551 15% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 14.0 28.8173652695 49% => OK
Preposition: 34.0 55.5748502994 61% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 16.3942115768 98% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1226.0 2260.96107784 54% => More number of characters wanted.
No of words: 229.0 441.139720559 52% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.35371179039 5.12650576532 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.89008302616 4.56307096286 85% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.93187940137 2.78398813304 105% => OK
Unique words: 113.0 204.123752495 55% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.493449781659 0.468620217663 105% => OK
syllable_count: 396.9 705.55239521 56% => syllable counts are too short.
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 4.0 8.76447105788 46% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 19.7664670659 61% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 46.7481431598 57.8364921388 81% => OK
Chars per sentence: 102.166666667 119.503703932 85% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.0833333333 23.324526521 82% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.33333333333 5.70786347227 93% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 5.25449101796 114% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.88822355289 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.204226607657 0.218282227539 94% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0899498758801 0.0743258471296 121% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0772561405279 0.0701772020484 110% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.117503452566 0.128457276422 91% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0615270215653 0.0628817314937 98% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.3 14.3799401198 92% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 43.73 48.3550499002 90% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.75 12.5979740519 109% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.72 8.32208582834 105% => OK
difficult_words: 60.0 98.500998004 61% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 12.3882235529 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Minimum 250 words wanted.
Rates: 33.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 2.0 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.