The following appeared as part of a column in a popular entertainment 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 very financially successful.
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument.
The argument claims that the upcoming movie, 3003 will be most likely to maximize its profits if it would exorbitantly pay Robin Good to star in it. This prediction is based on historical accounts where Robin was paid a similar amount to work in several movies which eventually became very financially successful. Stated in this way, the argument disregards the other factors that could affect the financial success of the movie. Further, the author wrongly assumes a causality between getting an actor onboard and the financial outcome of the movie, when there may only be correlation between the two.
Firstly, the author mistakenly assumes that an actor’s involvement is the only factor that would determine the success of the movie. This statement is a stretch as the financial success of a movie is based on several aspects other than the associated actors, including the story, direction, dialogues and branding.
Further, the author uses instances of the past, and solely uses them used to predict the future outcome of the movie. This claim is also weak, as we do not have enough information about those movies. Perhaps, the other movies where Robin was paid a higher amount had strong storylines or other accomplished actors that contributed to their financial success.
The massive fee likely to be paid to Robin Good may be only partly justified if Robin has a massive fan following and the credibility of the other persons involved in the movie is sub-optimal or untested. In such a case, the exorbitant fee, higher than the amount any other person involved in the movie would make, could be construed as an incentive for Robin to join the inexperienced team, and this incentive could be thought to have helped the movie grab eyeballs.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above-mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. In order to fully assess the argument, further information pertaining to other aspects of 3003, and to the past movies referenced in the argument is critical. Without these data points, the argument does not have strong legs to stand on.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022-04-04 | hattiengaines | 59 | view |
| 2020-05-19 | DC123123 | 61 | view |
Comments
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: 14 15
No. of Words: 346 350
No. of Characters: 1704 1500
No. of Different Words: 171 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.313 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.925 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.655 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 123 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 91 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 57 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 42 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 24.714 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.556 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.429 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.367 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.558 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.133 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 8, column 101, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
... reasons and is therefore unconvincing. In order to fully assess the argument, fur...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, if, may, so, therefore, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 19.6327345309 87% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.9520958084 69% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 13.6137724551 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 18.0 28.8173652695 62% => OK
Preposition: 40.0 55.5748502994 72% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 16.3942115768 73% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1756.0 2260.96107784 78% => OK
No of words: 346.0 441.139720559 78% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.07514450867 5.12650576532 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.31289638616 4.56307096286 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.71354501335 2.78398813304 97% => OK
Unique words: 179.0 204.123752495 88% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.517341040462 0.468620217663 110% => OK
syllable_count: 547.2 705.55239521 78% => 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: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 19.7664670659 71% => 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: 24.0 22.8473053892 105% => OK
Sentence length SD: 47.9523573084 57.8364921388 83% => OK
Chars per sentence: 125.428571429 119.503703932 105% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.7142857143 23.324526521 106% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.57142857143 5.70786347227 80% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.88822355289 73% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.67664670659 43% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.173535637143 0.218282227539 80% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0576777461187 0.0743258471296 78% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0854945294061 0.0701772020484 122% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.087006736767 0.128457276422 68% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0667676149082 0.0628817314937 106% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.9 14.3799401198 104% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 47.12 48.3550499002 97% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 12.197005988 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.48 12.5979740519 99% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.61 8.32208582834 103% => OK
difficult_words: 83.0 98.500998004 84% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 12.3882235529 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.1389221557 104% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 62.5 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.75 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.