The following argument is flawed for numerous reasons, primarily, the argument is based on the unwarranted assumptions that the inexperienced crew of assistant producers and directors, will take more time in arranging the studio set; rendering its main conclusion that if additional funding is not provided the movie will definitely fail.
First of all, it is not true that the inexperienced crew will definitely take a larger time to set up the scenes. In other words, inexperience does not relate to the lack of talent. For instance, it is possible that the director may have done several auditions before selecting his or her crew and they are actually very talented even better than the people he or she has worked before and may perform very acutely at the set. Also, it is assumed that an inexperienced first-time director who has only worked for shampoo companies before, will waste a lot of time to get a scene perfect. It is possible that this particular director is very insightful and perspicacious, and may even complete the film before the scheduled time. If the above reasons have merit, the argument is significantly flawed.
Secondly, there is no reason provided why the movie will fail if the funding is denied. In other words, does the failure of the movie means, the movie will not be completed or if the crew is not paid for overtime, they will not do their job perfectly. The conclusion drawn here is equivocal. For instance, it is possible that even if the crew is taking a long time to set up the set and the director is taking a long time to approve a particular shot, the actors and unionized crew can still perform their best. Also, it is possible that they will not ask for overtime pay. If this is true, the argument does not hold water.
Thirdly, the view of the movie producer about the advertisement business can be his own personal bias against them. It is possible that people who work in the advertisement business are actually very diligent and perspicacious. If this comes in light, the drawn conclusion is untenable.
Because the argument makes several unwarranted assumptions, it fails to make a convincing case that the movie will virtually be a failure if additional funding is denied.
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 17 15
No. of Words: 382 350
No. of Characters: 1801 1500
No. of Different Words: 169 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.421 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.715 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.7 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 114 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 92 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 73 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 42 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.471 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 12.967 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.941 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.324 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.531 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.088 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, first, if, may, second, secondly, so, still, third, thirdly, for instance, in conclusion, first of all, in other words
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 26.0 19.6327345309 132% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.9520958084 108% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 11.1786427146 98% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 13.6137724551 88% => OK
Pronoun: 33.0 28.8173652695 115% => OK
Preposition: 28.0 55.5748502994 50% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 10.0 16.3942115768 61% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1856.0 2260.96107784 82% => OK
No of words: 382.0 441.139720559 87% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.85863874346 5.12650576532 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.42095241839 4.56307096286 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.77478020207 2.78398813304 100% => OK
Unique words: 175.0 204.123752495 86% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.458115183246 0.468620217663 98% => OK
syllable_count: 594.9 705.55239521 84% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 4.96107784431 181% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 19.7664670659 86% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 77.7581202159 57.8364921388 134% => OK
Chars per sentence: 109.176470588 119.503703932 91% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.4705882353 23.324526521 96% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.88235294118 5.70786347227 138% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.88822355289 73% => 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: 0.160780365687 0.218282227539 74% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0503350750934 0.0743258471296 68% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.054878569596 0.0701772020484 78% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0839931815311 0.128457276422 65% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.044577305891 0.0628817314937 71% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.7 14.3799401198 88% => Automated_readability_index is low.
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: 11.2 12.5979740519 89% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.83 8.32208582834 94% => OK
difficult_words: 75.0 98.500998004 76% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 12.3882235529 117% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => 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.