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
Movie funding is composed of a lot of components which includes advertising and paying the cast for their time on the sets. The success of a movie is hugely determined by its advertising costs. The greater the extent of advertisement, the more the viewers of the movie. Although the overall performance of a movie is determined by other factors as well, still advertising plays a crucial role in the initial stages of its release.
The author argues that we need to reduce the funding for the movie in order to ensure a quality product. This claim is based on a number of assumptions which have not been elucidated by the author. These assumptions should be conspicuous enough to support the claim to increase the funding of the movie.
Firstly, the author assumes that a first-time director will be incompetent enough for the shoot to take more time. The author does not explore if this director has got any other educational qualifications to prove his or her merit in movie making as well. Many times it has been seen that a newcomer director has become more successful than an experienced one.
Secondly, the author assumes that by hiring inexperienced assistant producers and directors, money will be saved. This assumption has not be proven by any evidences. Unless this assumption is proven by evidence, it cannot be translated into greater expenditures in paying actors and unionized crew for the extra hours they spend on the sets. The author has to provide time logs for extra time spent waiting for arranging the sets before vouching for the increase in funding.
In conclusion, the author needs to provide numerical data to back up his claims on increasing the funding for the movie by 10%. Moreover, the author has to specifically mention why the funding needs to increase by 10% by providing vital statistics of movie funding.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 2.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 16 15
No. of Words: 312 350
No. of Characters: 1499 1500
No. of Different Words: 157 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.203 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.804 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.722 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 106 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 76 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 49 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 35 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 19.5 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 5.303 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.375 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.351 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.618 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.129 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 13, column 139, Rule ID: HAVE_PART_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Possible agreement error -- use past participle here: 'been'.
Suggestion: been
... will be saved. This assumption has not be proven by any evidences. Unless this as...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, firstly, if, moreover, second, secondly, still, well, as to, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 19.6327345309 61% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 12.9520958084 39% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 11.1786427146 36% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 6.0 13.6137724551 44% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 19.0 28.8173652695 66% => OK
Preposition: 43.0 55.5748502994 77% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 16.3942115768 37% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1549.0 2260.96107784 69% => OK
No of words: 312.0 441.139720559 71% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.96474358974 5.12650576532 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.20279927342 4.56307096286 92% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.77180962246 2.78398813304 100% => OK
Unique words: 160.0 204.123752495 78% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.512820512821 0.468620217663 109% => OK
syllable_count: 483.3 705.55239521 68% => 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: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.22255489022 24% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 19.7664670659 81% => 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: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 31.5202687766 57.8364921388 54% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 96.8125 119.503703932 81% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.5 23.324526521 84% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.0625 5.70786347227 89% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.20758483034 134% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 6.88822355289 15% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.261561639129 0.218282227539 120% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0891231636937 0.0743258471296 120% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0947943172564 0.0701772020484 135% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.149360855667 0.128457276422 116% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0506827785035 0.0628817314937 81% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.7 14.3799401198 81% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 60.65 48.3550499002 125% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 12.197005988 78% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.49 12.5979740519 91% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.53 8.32208582834 102% => OK
difficult_words: 78.0 98.500998004 79% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 12.3882235529 69% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.