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 which, on the basis of unwarranted assumptions, concludes that the movie will be a failure if more funding is not procured is not cogent. These assumptions, taken together, render the argument false and cause it to lack coherence.
The conclusion is based on a flawed correlation that since the advertising business is notoriously wasteful, the director too will waste a lot of time. It does not state why and how the business is wasteful and what the director may have to do with it. It is true that the director was a part of that business before but it is possible that the reasons...
Subscribe as testbig VIP readers and get unlimited access to essays on the top list.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Sentence: Maybe the industry put in a lot more money on publicity or brought in thespians who were paid an exorbitant amount to play a part in commericials.
Error: commericials Suggestion: commercials
Sentence: It is possible that the crew, passionate and dedicated to the project, put in the extra time which may be required to make the film a succes.
Error: succes Suggestion: success
----------------
argument 1 -- OK
argument 2 -- OK
argument 3 -- OK
----------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 5.0 out of 6
Category: Very Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 2 2
No. of Sentences: 21 15
No. of Words: 504 350
No. of Characters: 2367 1500
No. of Different Words: 201 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.738 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.696 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.544 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 151 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 121 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 91 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 43 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 24 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.561 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.476 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.325 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.569 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.15 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 367, Rule ID: IT_VBZ[1]
Message: Did you mean 'comes'?
Suggestion: comes
...experienced had highly skillful when it come to their work and can get work done in ...
^^^^
Line 7, column 195, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'films'' or 'film's'?
Suggestion: films'; film's
...other than money that contribute to the films success. It is possible that the films ...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 610, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'films'' or 'film's'?
Suggestion: films'; film's
...ly weaken the conclusion further that a films success depends on the funding is procu...
^^^^^
Line 9, column 471, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'movies'' or 'movie's'?
Suggestion: movies'; movie's
...he extra money would be the root of the movies failure were provided. Without this inf...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, however, if, may, so, then, thus, it is true
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 26.0 19.6327345309 132% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 23.0 12.9520958084 178% => OK
Conjunction : 19.0 11.1786427146 170% => OK
Relative clauses : 23.0 13.6137724551 169% => OK
Pronoun: 42.0 28.8173652695 146% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 51.0 55.5748502994 92% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 16.3942115768 104% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2419.0 2260.96107784 107% => OK
No of words: 504.0 441.139720559 114% => OK
Chars per words: 4.7996031746 5.12650576532 94% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.73813722054 4.56307096286 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.62536440619 2.78398813304 94% => OK
Unique words: 214.0 204.123752495 105% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.424603174603 0.468620217663 91% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 756.9 705.55239521 107% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 12.0 4.96107784431 242% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 5.0 8.76447105788 57% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 19.7664670659 106% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 22.8473053892 105% => OK
Sentence length SD: 36.8647094485 57.8364921388 64% => OK
Chars per sentence: 115.19047619 119.503703932 96% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.0 23.324526521 103% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.33333333333 5.70786347227 41% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.88822355289 131% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.67664670659 86% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.137863313385 0.218282227539 63% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0459341160579 0.0743258471296 62% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0336441095187 0.0701772020484 48% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0777559388847 0.128457276422 61% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0141499018096 0.0628817314937 23% => 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: 13.2 14.3799401198 92% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 55.58 48.3550499002 115% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.197005988 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.86 12.5979740519 86% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.77 8.32208582834 93% => OK
difficult_words: 94.0 98.500998004 95% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.1389221557 104% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.