The movie producer's argument to increase the movie's budget by 10% to ensure a quality product, considering working with first- timers is spurious on various ground and his assumptions are unsubstantiated.
Initially, it is presumed that the new director, whose only previous experience is in shooting commercials for a shampoo company, is also profligate as the advertising business is supposed to be. However, he may not be one of those directors that preferred extravagance. Also, there is a possibility that he is very efficient and may even be frugal in shooting the film that it will be finished in lesser budget than initially allocated for the movie. In addition, the directors may know the difference in the movie and advertising business and how the numbers work in both the areas. The producer underrates the director’s intellect and efficacy making this claim unsound.
Secondly, the movie producer posits that since the advertising business is notoriously wasteful, the movie requires an additional budget that will suffice the director's need to be able to shoot take after take. Here, the producer has failed to take into account that even though advertising companies are prodigal, the shampoo company may not be that financially well placed to support squandering of resources and that the director has produced a fine quality of work within the scanty resources he got. The failure of writer to consider these factors renders this claim unjustified.
Lastly, the writer proffers that they have hired relatively inexperienced assistant producers and directors and that this savings in salary will help them in the expenditures for the extra hours. However, the author is underestimating the caliber of these new assistant producers and directors and they might be more efficient than the producer actually deems them to be. More so, it is said that they are relatively inexperienced, meaning they have a certain amount of experience and they might be actually good then the producer thinks causing this claim to be fallacious
Therefore, on the basis of above mentioned fallacies, the argument that the movie Working Title requires and additional funding of 10% to ensure a quality product is not compelling enough to prove what it was set out for.
Essay evaluation report
Need to argue against the conclusion always. For this topic it is:
If we don’t get this extra money, the movie is virtually assured to be a failure.
----------------------
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: 13 15
No. of Words: 365 350
No. of Characters: 1866 1500
No. of Different Words: 184 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.371 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.112 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.855 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 138 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 114 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 85 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 53 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 28.077 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.381 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.846 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.352 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.623 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.153 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 118, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'these'?
Suggestion: these
...istant producers and directors and that this savings in salary will help them in the...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, first, however, if, lastly, may, second, secondly, so, then, therefore, well, in addition
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 25.0 19.6327345309 127% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.9520958084 77% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 11.1786427146 107% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 13.6137724551 103% => OK
Pronoun: 35.0 28.8173652695 121% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 39.0 55.5748502994 70% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 16.3942115768 43% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1918.0 2260.96107784 85% => OK
No of words: 365.0 441.139720559 83% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.25479452055 5.12650576532 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.37092360658 4.56307096286 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.934718507 2.78398813304 105% => OK
Unique words: 187.0 204.123752495 92% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.512328767123 0.468620217663 109% => OK
syllable_count: 606.6 705.55239521 86% => OK
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: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.70958083832 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
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: 30.0 22.8473053892 131% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 93.88734384 57.8364921388 162% => OK
Chars per sentence: 159.833333333 119.503703932 134% => OK
Words per sentence: 30.4166666667 23.324526521 130% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.75 5.70786347227 153% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 6.88822355289 29% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.282717594892 0.218282227539 130% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.106670009752 0.0743258471296 144% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0968643058057 0.0701772020484 138% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.193651694205 0.128457276422 151% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.106237597766 0.0628817314937 169% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 18.5 14.3799401198 129% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 32.57 48.3550499002 67% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 16.2 12.197005988 133% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.76 12.5979740519 109% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.28 8.32208582834 112% => OK
difficult_words: 96.0 98.500998004 97% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 12.3882235529 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 14.0 11.1389221557 126% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 75.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.5 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.