In this excerpt, the author outrightly claims that if they do not recieve the extra 10% money, the movie is sure to fail. In the first look, this might seem to be one of the outcomes of the movie, but to understand this scenario further, one has to deep dive into the details and understand all the individual entities affecting the success of the movie.
Firstly, the author states that the first-time director they are working with has a previous experience only in the advertising agency, and hence would not be cogizant of the time constraints under which a film is made. This is an extremely generic statement to make with no evidence to prove it. There could be a scenario that the shampoo industry he comes from worked under a tight budget constraint which could afford only two to three takes of a scene. Understanding the director's working style is extremely important to help the movie be a success. The actors, producers and the crew must function accordingly, and such baseless assumptions do not help solve any core issues here.
Secondly, it is definitely a cost saver that the assistant producers and directors are paid a slightly lower salary, but assuming that they would have work overtime for long durations is not supported by any evidence. To strengthen this claim, log sheets or timetables of daily shooting schedules would be helpful. This is a assertion based on the assuption that the assistant directors and producers would not have the arrangements ready in time. Judging the skillset of the of the relatively inexperienced assistant directors, based solely on their number of years of experience- without having any knowledge of their previous working dynamics is not a right conclusion to make.
In addition to this, there is no mention of why a funding of only 10% is required to prevent the movie from being a failure. Moreover, the criteria of this movie being a 'failure' is not explained. Failure could be related to bad reviews, low gross collections, bad direction, script or acting. Some of these might be tackled with the extended budget, while some would surely not be changed. Hence, a detailed plan of how and where the money investments would go, and more importantly if they would play a hand in improving the movie to prevent it from being a 'failure' would be a good evidence to back this claim.
In conclusion, a variety of to evidence is required to strengthen the claim of getting an extra 10% fund. Many of the claims are completely generic statements, which are neither backed on any emperical data, nor proof. The caliber of the director, producers and crew is also judged without any prior knowledge, and is purely based on assumptions. To critically evaluate the success or failure of the film, a detailed action plan as well as information about the working entities should be kept in mind.
Essay evaluation report
Sentence: In this excerpt, the author outrightly claims that if they do not recieve the extra 10 money, the movie is sure to fail.
Error: recieve Suggestion: receive
Error: outrightly Suggestion: No alternate word
Sentence: Firstly, the author states that the first-time director they are working with has a previous experience only in the advertising agency, and hence would not be cogizant of the time constraints under which a film is made.
Error: cogizant Suggestion: cognizant
Sentence: This is a assertion based on the assuption that the assistant directors and producers would not have the arrangements ready in time.
Error: assuption Suggestion: assumption
Sentence: Judging the skillset of the of the relatively inexperienced assistant directors, based solely on their number of years of experience- without having any knowledge of their previous working dynamics is not a right conclusion to make.
Error: skillset Suggestion: skillet
Sentence: Many of the claims are completely generic statements, which are neither backed on any emperical data, nor proof.
Error: emperical Suggestion: empirical
----------------
argument 1 -- OK
argument 2 -- not OK. need to argue this:
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.
argument 3 -- OK
----------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 6 2
No. of Sentences: 20 15
No. of Words: 486 350
No. of Characters: 2301 1500
No. of Different Words: 234 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.695 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.735 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.644 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 151 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 126 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 90 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 57 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 24.3 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.376 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.6 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.287 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.523 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.066 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 324, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'an' instead of 'a' if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g. 'an article', 'an hour'
Suggestion: an
...ing schedules would be helpful. This is a assertion based on the assuption that t...
^
Line 5, column 470, Rule ID: PHRASE_REPETITION[1]
Message: This phrase is duplicated. You should probably leave only 'of the'.
Suggestion: of the
...nts ready in time. Judging the skillset of the of the relatively inexperienced assistant dire...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
accordingly, also, but, first, firstly, hence, if, look, moreover, second, secondly, so, then, well, while, as to, in addition, in conclusion, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 31.0 19.6327345309 158% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.9520958084 116% => OK
Conjunction : 16.0 11.1786427146 143% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 13.6137724551 73% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 26.0 28.8173652695 90% => OK
Preposition: 63.0 55.5748502994 113% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 16.3942115768 85% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2367.0 2260.96107784 105% => OK
No of words: 486.0 441.139720559 110% => OK
Chars per words: 4.87037037037 5.12650576532 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.69525374022 4.56307096286 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.71111051769 2.78398813304 97% => OK
Unique words: 246.0 204.123752495 121% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.506172839506 0.468620217663 108% => OK
syllable_count: 736.2 705.55239521 104% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 7.0 1.67365269461 418% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 19.7664670659 101% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 22.8473053892 105% => OK
Sentence length SD: 52.872748179 57.8364921388 91% => OK
Chars per sentence: 118.35 119.503703932 99% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.3 23.324526521 104% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.65 5.70786347227 134% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => 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: 0.151562914717 0.218282227539 69% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0496382439402 0.0743258471296 67% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0470305078035 0.0701772020484 67% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.08485804169 0.128457276422 66% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0504098848123 0.0628817314937 80% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.7 14.3799401198 95% => OK
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: 11.26 12.5979740519 89% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.69 8.32208582834 104% => OK
difficult_words: 119.0 98.500998004 121% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 17.5 12.3882235529 141% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.1389221557 104% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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.