The following appeared as a part of a column in a popular magazine:
"The producers of the forthcoming movie 3003 will be most likely to maximize their profits if they are willing to pay Robin Good several million dollars to star in it - even though that amount is far more than any other person involved with the movie will make. After all, Robin has in the past been paid a similar amount to work in several films that were financially successful"
According to the magazine, the producers of a forthcoming movie would be expecting to maximise their profits, if they were to cast Robin Good in it. It is further mentioned that the several million dollars that they pay Robin Good, would be compensated by the expected financial success of the movie, which has been seen in the past for his other movies. The reasoning in the argument has quite a few flaws.
Firstly, it is assumed that they would maximise their profits if they case Robin in the movie. This assumption made in the argument isn’t backed up with any kind of data or study of the market and lacks the supporting base. There can be a case wherein, the viewers need a change and want to see new talent on screen. This talent might even come at a cheaper price that Robin, thus increasing the profits then.
Secondly, the argument brings up the past financial success of the movies that the actor was cast in and assumes that the same trend would continue. However, this might not necessarily be that case. The past financial success could have been when Robin was at the peak of his acting career and there were only a few that could match his skills. Now the people might not resonate well with his acting as the viewers demographics have changed. There could also be a situation where, genre of the movies in the past could be different from the current movie, so the financial success can’t be compared
Thirdly, the film industry is currently moving in a very budget oriented scene. If such a huge amount is paid to just one of the casts, it could mean compromising other important aspects of the movie like the special effects, the movie equipments, the other specialists in the respective field who demand a high price. So, even after having a star like Robin on screen, the movie might fall short on those aspects.
The argument could have been convincing if more facts and details about the movie, the genre, the actor - Robin and the budget would have been mentioned. In the light of all the above mentioned facts, it can be concluded that the argument remains unconvincing.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-05-18 | chirag123466788 | 66 | view |
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 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: 372 350
No. of Characters: 1684 1500
No. of Different Words: 183 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.392 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.527 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.296 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 95 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 72 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 44 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 29 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.882 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.69 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.706 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.331 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.566 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.058 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, firstly, however, if, second, secondly, so, then, third, thirdly, thus, well, kind of
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.6327345309 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 19.0 12.9520958084 147% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 11.1786427146 63% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 13.6137724551 95% => OK
Pronoun: 28.0 28.8173652695 97% => OK
Preposition: 45.0 55.5748502994 81% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 16.3942115768 43% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1747.0 2260.96107784 77% => OK
No of words: 371.0 441.139720559 84% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.70889487871 5.12650576532 92% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.38877662729 4.56307096286 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.40422238844 2.78398813304 86% => OK
Unique words: 191.0 204.123752495 94% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.514824797844 0.468620217663 110% => OK
syllable_count: 526.5 705.55239521 75% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.59920159681 88% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Article: 12.0 8.76447105788 137% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => 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: 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: 23.0 22.8473053892 101% => OK
Sentence length SD: 56.7206697334 57.8364921388 98% => OK
Chars per sentence: 109.1875 119.503703932 91% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.1875 23.324526521 99% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.125 5.70786347227 107% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 8.20758483034 146% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 6.88822355289 44% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.67664670659 21% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.180163922562 0.218282227539 83% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0624671087364 0.0743258471296 84% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0666355707064 0.0701772020484 95% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.105500476506 0.128457276422 82% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0720448487788 0.0628817314937 115% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.3 14.3799401198 86% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 65.05 48.3550499002 135% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 12.197005988 81% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.33 12.5979740519 82% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.59 8.32208582834 91% => OK
difficult_words: 66.0 98.500998004 67% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 12.3882235529 73% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.1389221557 101% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.9071856287 84% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.