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 claims that the producers of the movie 3003 will be most likely to maximize their profits if they employ Robing Good as an actor in the movie by paying him several million dollars. The line of reasoning is that the recent movies in which Robin Good starred in were highly financially successful. Stated in this way, the argument fails to mention several key factors, on the basis of which it could be evaluated. Also, the argument reveals examples of leap of faith, poor reasoning and ill-defined terminology. The conclusion of the argument relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hence, the argument is unconvincing and has several flaws.
First, the argument readily assumes that the profits of 3003 depend only on Robin Good. This statement is a stretch and not substantiated in any way. Not only it is well known that the success of a movie depends on several other factors, but also the author fails to discuss them. For example, the season, in which the movie is released, has a strong impact on the success. If the movie is released in summer, the profits will be lower. regardless of Robin Good starring in the movie or not, as if the producers release the movie in the winter. The argument could have been much clearer if it explicitly provides data and evidence for the influence of Robin Good on the movie’s success.
Second, the argument claims that paying Robin Good an above-average salary will increase the profits of 3003. This is again a very weak and unsupported claim, as the argument does not demonstrate any correlation between the profits of a movie and the high of the actors’ salary. Not only has a high salary a negative impact on the profits as it increases the production costs, but also on the production budget. As a result, the production cannot be as extensive as it could be. Also, the argument does not provide any data about the previous pays of Robin Good which could justify the high pay. If the argument had provided evidence that high pay of Robin Good has a positive effect on the profits of 3003 then the argument would have been a lot more convincing.
Finally, the argument concludes that as Robin Good has been paid a similar salary in his recent movies, which were very financially successful, it is justified to pay Robin Good a similar amount for starring in 3003. From this statement again, it is not clear at all how Robin Good positively influences the profits from 3003. The argument provides no supporting data that the profits from 3003 only depend on from Robin Good nor that a high pay of Robin Good will maximize the producers’ profits. Without supporting facts to these questions, one is left with the impression that the claim is more of wishful thinking and not substantive evidence.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above-mentioned reasons and so unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author provided supporting data. Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022-04-04 | hattiengaines | 59 | view |
| 2020-05-19 | DC123123 | 61 | view |
| 2020-04-02 | DIRaGoIN | 79 | view |
| 2019-07-20 | nouri96 | 89 | view |
| 2019-06-06 | vipul.sahni | 72 | view |
- Our research indicates that over the past six years no incidents of employee theft have been reported within 10 of the companies that have been our clients In analyzing the security practices of these 10 companies we have further learned that each of 70
- This past winter 200 students from Waymarsh State College traveled to the state capitol building to protest againstproposed cuts in funding for various state college programs The other 12 000 Waymarsh students evidently weren tso concerned about their 68
- The Cumquat Cafe began advertising on our local radio station this year and was delighted to see its business increase by 10 percent over last year s totals Their success shows you how you can use radio advertising to make your business more profitabl 58
- Cafe 16
- The following appeared as part of an article in the business section of a local newspaper The owners of the Cumquat Caf evidently made a good business decision in moving to a new location as can
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 25 15
No. of Words: 518 350
No. of Characters: 2454 1500
No. of Different Words: 202 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.771 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.737 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.625 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 165 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 128 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 84 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 48 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.72 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.023 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.64 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.346 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.52 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.131 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 438, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Regardless
...d in summer, the profits will be lower. regardless of Robin Good starring in the movie or ...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 597, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “If” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
... Good which could justify the high pay. If the argument had provided evidence that...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, hence, if, second, so, then, well, for example, in conclusion, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 24.0 19.6327345309 122% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.9520958084 85% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 11.1786427146 116% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 13.6137724551 118% => OK
Pronoun: 29.0 28.8173652695 101% => OK
Preposition: 59.0 55.5748502994 106% => OK
Nominalization: 29.0 16.3942115768 177% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2528.0 2260.96107784 112% => OK
No of words: 518.0 441.139720559 117% => OK
Chars per words: 4.88030888031 5.12650576532 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.77070365392 4.56307096286 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.71782860546 2.78398813304 98% => OK
Unique words: 212.0 204.123752495 104% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.409266409266 0.468620217663 87% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 773.1 705.55239521 110% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Article: 17.0 8.76447105788 194% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 26.0 19.7664670659 132% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 41.4369129096 57.8364921388 72% => OK
Chars per sentence: 97.2307692308 119.503703932 81% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.9230769231 23.324526521 85% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.88461538462 5.70786347227 68% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 14.0 8.20758483034 171% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.88822355289 131% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.67664670659 64% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.328416042181 0.218282227539 150% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.101272725623 0.0743258471296 136% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.101966229353 0.0701772020484 145% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.194442811774 0.128457276422 151% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0945559161839 0.0628817314937 150% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.5 14.3799401198 80% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 60.65 48.3550499002 125% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 12.197005988 78% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.02 12.5979740519 87% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.87 8.32208582834 95% => OK
difficult_words: 108.0 98.500998004 110% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => 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.