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 producer argues that extra funding of 10 percent in the move "Working Title" could provide more ease to the director and starcast and should be able to benefit the team. Stated in this way the producer failed to mention several key factors on the basis of which the argument needs to be evaluted. To justify the argument the producer reasons that since the director is a tyro to movie industry and has done only advertisement previously, then the enhanced money could provide ease to the director for taking multiple takes of a scene and frees the director to shoot the movie without any concern. Howevery, careful scrutiny of the argument provides little creditable support to producer's argument. Hence, the producers argument is incomplete and unsubstantiated.
First of all, the producer haven't mentioned anything about the overall budget of the movie. Additionally, without knowing the overall budget we could not predict whether 10 percent enhancement in current budget would be a less amount or not. If the current budget is already low then increasing 10 percent would not make much effect on the final budget of the movie. But if the current budget is already high, then 10 percent increase would be an adequate move. Hence, the producer needs to provide the initial budget in order to make the argument more cogent.
Seondly, it is necessary to know about the working experience of director and actors as well. Since it is known that the director is a tyro to the company, the actors should be experienced or talented in order to successfully shoot the movie and make it successful. Moreover, since the director's contribution is crucial to any movie, his previous work should be given by the producer in order to better assess his capability and could estimate whether the budget should be increased for the movie or not.
Finally, the producer should analyze some of the movies with low budgets in order to make the argumdigent more convincing. Since, low budget movies with good stories sometimes wow the audience and become a blockbuster. But most of the movies with lack of direction, can flop the movie and make the efforts of directors and actors futile. Thus, if the producer would have considered some previous superhit movies with low budgets, the argument could have been more convincing to analyze.
In conclusion, the producers argument is unpersuasive as it stands. To bolster it further, the produer should provide nsecessary information, perhaps by the way of reliable survey about the directors and other starcast's previous working experience. To bolster it further, it would be necessary to know why the producer had chosen the director for shooting the movie after knowing his advertising experience.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Sentence: The producer argues that extra funding of 10 percent in the move 'Working Title' could provide more ease to the director and starcast and should be able to benefit the team.
Error: starcast Suggestion: staircase
Sentence: Stated in this way the producer failed to mention several key factors on the basis of which the argument needs to be evaluted.
Error: evaluted Suggestion: evaluated
Sentence: Finally, the producer should analyze some of the movies with low budgets in order to make the argumdigent more convincing.
Error: argumdigent Suggestion: argument
Sentence: Thus, if the producer would have considered some previous superhit movies with low budgets, the argument could have been more convincing to analyze.
Error: superhit Suggestion: superset
Sentence: To bolster it further, the produer should provide nsecessary information, perhaps by the way of reliable survey about the directors and other starcast's previous working experience.
Error: nsecessary Suggestion: necessary
Error: produer Suggestion: producer
-----------------
flaws:
the arguments are not right on the point.
----------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 2.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 6 2
No. of Sentences: 20 15
No. of Words: 452 350
No. of Characters: 2238 1500
No. of Different Words: 196 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.611 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.951 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.607 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 173 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 136 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 84 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 39 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.6 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.886 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.65 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.347 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.579 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.136 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 724, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'producers'' or 'producer's'?
Suggestion: producers'; producer's
...pport to producers argument. Hence, the producers argument is incomplete and unsubstantia...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 28, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: haven't
...antiated. First of all, the producer havent mentioned anything about the overall bu...
^^^^^^
Line 3, column 243, 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.
...t budget would be a less amount or not. If the current budget is already low then ...
^^
Line 5, column 287, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'directors'' or 'director's'?
Suggestion: directors'; director's
...make it successful. Moreover, since the directors contribution is crucial to any movie, h...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 38, Rule ID: SOME_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'some'.
Suggestion: some
... Finally, the producer should analyze some of the movies with low budgets in order to mak...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 361, Rule ID: IF_WOULD_HAVE_VBN[1]
Message: Did you mean 'had considered'?
Suggestion: had considered
...nd actors futile. Thus, if the producer would have considered some previous superhit movies with low ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 476, Rule ID: ALLOW_TO[1]
Message: Did you mean 'analyzing'? Or maybe you should add a pronoun? In active voice, 'convince' + 'to' takes an object, usually a pronoun.
Suggestion: analyzing
...rgument could have been more convincing to analyze. In conclusion, the producers argume...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 20, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'producers'' or 'producer's'?
Suggestion: producers'; producer's
...ncing to analyze. In conclusion, the producers argument is unpersuasive as it stands. ...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, hence, however, if, moreover, so, then, thus, well, in conclusion, by the way, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 19.6327345309 92% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 17.0 12.9520958084 131% => OK
Conjunction : 17.0 11.1786427146 152% => OK
Relative clauses : 4.0 13.6137724551 29% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 15.0 28.8173652695 52% => OK
Preposition: 59.0 55.5748502994 106% => OK
Nominalization: 18.0 16.3942115768 110% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2303.0 2260.96107784 102% => OK
No of words: 451.0 441.139720559 102% => OK
Chars per words: 5.10643015521 5.12650576532 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.60833598836 4.56307096286 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.71798212046 2.78398813304 98% => OK
Unique words: 198.0 204.123752495 97% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.439024390244 0.468620217663 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 721.8 705.55239521 102% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.22255489022 166% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 19.7664670659 101% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 56.5277807808 57.8364921388 98% => OK
Chars per sentence: 115.15 119.503703932 96% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.55 23.324526521 97% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.6 5.70786347227 98% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 8.0 5.25449101796 152% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => 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: 0.311133254765 0.218282227539 143% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.100583484832 0.0743258471296 135% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0568376609707 0.0701772020484 81% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.183373384824 0.128457276422 143% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0523035611967 0.0628817314937 83% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.9 14.3799401198 97% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 48.3550499002 102% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.65 12.5979740519 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.23 8.32208582834 99% => OK
difficult_words: 100.0 98.500998004 102% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 18.0 12.3882235529 145% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => 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.