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 makes a number of unjustified assumptions regarding the increase in the funding for the movie. Considering all the assumptions that the argument makes while trying to reason the increased funding, the argument would totally fall apart if one or more of these unstated assumptions were not true. Some of the flaws of this particular argument have to stated below.
The first assumption that the argument makes is that the director, who only has experience directing commercials, would be wasteful. The argument mentions that the advertising business is notorious for wasting resources; however, it fails to mention whether the director, too, is wasteful as well. However, it might be the case that this particular director is very keen about expenses; in which he differs from the rest of his/her competitors in the advertising community. If this were true, the director might as well finish the shoot in the appropriate amount of money required; thus, increasing the funding for the movie by 10% would be unnecessary and doing so could raise questions: after hearing that even though the shoot could be done in the allotted amount of money, the producer requested an increase in funding, the movie studio might think that the producer was trying to mismanage the funds and sue him for it. Thus, this could result in a lot of legal as well as ethical complications for the producer.
Second, the argument mentions that they have hired a relatively inexperienced crew - assistant producers and directors - for cutting expenses, and concludes that this will lead to increase time needed to arrange things for the shoot. This statement assumes that the crew will be slower to arrange things because of their lack of experience. However, no support has been provided for this assumption. If the argument would have mentioned a survey which said that experienced crew tend to work faster, this assumption could have been supported. However, as no such support has been provided, it might be the case that the inexperienced crew work more swiftly than the experienced crew, maybe because they want to prove that they are at least as good as, if not better, than their more experienced competitors. If this assumption is unwarranted, the assistant producers and directors might arrange things fast, needing no extra expenditure on payment of actors and the unionized crew. Thus, the increase in funding would not be required at all.
Finally, the argument states that if this extra money is not provided, the movie will almost certainly be a failure. The argument fails to provide any evidence for the assumption that states that there is a relation between the lack of funding and the success/failure of the movie. If this assumption is untrue, then there would be no effect of increasing the funding, that is, the method suggested by the author to counter these issues, on the failure of the movie. It is entirely possible that in spite of increasing the funding, the movie, due to its terrible storyline, was utterly unwatchable and turned out to be a complete failure.
All of the aforementioned assumptions, if unwarranted, seriously damage the argument's authenticity. The conclusion, to increase the funding for the movie, as suggested by the movie producer, would not hold true and would be ineffective if any of these assumptions were not justified.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 309, Rule ID: SOME_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'some'.
Suggestion: Some
...ese unstated assumptions were not true. Some of the flaws of this particular argument have ...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 84, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ve hired a relatively inexperienced crew assistant producers and directors for ...
^^^
Line 3, column 120, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...crew assistant producers and directors for cutting expenses, and concludes that...
^^^
Line 3, column 417, Rule ID: IF_WOULD_HAVE_VBN[1]
Message: Did you mean 'had mentioned'?
Suggestion: had mentioned
...ed for this assumption. If the argument would have mentioned a survey which said that experienced cr...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 2, Rule ID: ALL_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'all the'.
Suggestion: All the
... turned out to be a complete failure. All of the aforementioned assumptions, if unwarran...
^^^^^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['finally', 'first', 'however', 'if', 'may', 'regarding', 'second', 'so', 'then', 'thus', 'well', 'while', 'at least', 'as well as', 'in spite of']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.20578778135 0.25644967241 80% => OK
Verbs: 0.162379421222 0.15541462614 104% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0675241157556 0.0836205057962 81% => OK
Adverbs: 0.064308681672 0.0520304965353 124% => OK
Pronouns: 0.024115755627 0.0272364105082 89% => OK
Prepositions: 0.136655948553 0.125424944231 109% => OK
Participles: 0.0514469453376 0.0416121511921 124% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.81772653347 2.79052419416 101% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0225080385852 0.026700313972 84% => OK
Particles: 0.0016077170418 0.001811407834 89% => OK
Determiners: 0.146302250804 0.113004496875 129% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.032154340836 0.0255425247493 126% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.008038585209 0.0127820249294 63% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 3376.0 2731.13054187 124% => OK
No of words: 554.0 446.07635468 124% => OK
Chars per words: 6.09386281588 6.12365571057 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.85151570047 4.57801047555 106% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.348375451264 0.378187486979 92% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.287003610108 0.287650121315 100% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.22202166065 0.208842608468 106% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.142599277978 0.135150697306 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.81772653347 2.79052419416 101% => OK
Unique words: 243.0 207.018472906 117% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.438628158845 0.469332199767 93% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
Word variations: 51.5182833682 52.1807786196 99% => OK
How many sentences: 21.0 20.039408867 105% => OK
Sentence length: 26.380952381 23.2022227129 114% => OK
Sentence length SD: 84.313231989 57.7814097925 146% => OK
Chars per sentence: 160.761904762 141.986410481 113% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.380952381 23.2022227129 114% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.714285714286 0.724660767414 99% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 3.58251231527 140% => OK
Readability: 55.0813133918 51.9672348444 106% => OK
Elegance: 1.57051282051 1.8405768891 85% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.358768309082 0.441005458295 81% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.177881740353 0.135418324435 131% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.102570608538 0.0829849096947 124% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.630037372046 0.58762219726 107% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.17210598644 0.147661913831 117% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.176794376789 0.193483328276 91% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0715735410464 0.0970749176394 74% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.521076216374 0.42659136922 122% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0380281797823 0.0774707102158 49% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.274740136176 0.312017818177 88% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0399320543809 0.0698173142475 57% => The ideas may be duplicated in paragraphs.
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.33743842365 84% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 14.0 6.87684729064 204% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.82512315271 0% => More neutral sentences wanted.
Positive topic words: 7.0 6.46551724138 108% => OK
Negative topic words: 12.0 5.36822660099 224% => OK
Neutral topic words: 0.0 2.82389162562 0% => More neutral topic words wanted.
Total topic words: 19.0 14.657635468 130% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 54.17 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.25 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.