AWA Score: 3 out of 6!
I have used a GMATAWA auto-grader to evaluate your essay.
Coherence and connectivity: 2/5
This rating corresponds to the flow of ideas and expressions from one paragraph to another. The effective use of connectives and coherence of assertive language in arguing for/against the argument is analyzed. This is deemed as one of the most important parameters.
Paragraph structure and formation: 4.5/5
The structure and division of the attempt into appropriate paragraphs are evaluated. To score well on this parameter, it is important to organize the attempt into paragraphs. Preferable to follow the convention of leaving a line blank at the end of each paragraph, to make the software aware of the structure of the essay.
Vocabulary and word expression: 3.5/5
This parameter rates the submitted essay on the range of relevant vocabulary possessed by the candidate basis the word and expression usage. There are no extra- points for bombastic word usage. Simple is the best form of suave!
PS: Don't write anything in the subject line of the new topic except for the first line of the prompt. (As i have edited this topic for you)
Good Luck
pkbiet wrote:
Please evaluate my essay.
Prompt: “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”
Essay Format
The author debates that movie producers should consider paying Mr Robin a whooping amount in order to introduce him in movie and make it hit. This can be attributed to several previous occasions where the same phenomenon was observed. Stated in such a way the author has presented a sheer childish approach in his hypothesis. He should have corroborated with several statistics without which it is more of a wishful thought. It is a manipulated fact and leap of faith without clear outcomes.
First, the author is in the belief that if the producers pay whopping amount to Mr Robin in their movie, then it can be assured that movie will be a successful commercial. This fact is really a kiddish approach as performances in past cannot guarantee in future. However the author has failed to recognise that the current star has also given several commercial hits which can be attributed to the fact that he was Oscar nominated for last 3 years. The author has also failed to recognise the off screen fan following of the current star of 3003 movie.
Second, the author has strengthened his position by the fact thatMr Robin was paid similarly in last movies which had been a huge hit. Here the author fails to recognise that the last movies of Robin which he mentions were also of enormous large budget. According to the financial times the last movie of Mr Robin was supposedly equal in budget of Mars Mission. So, if compared to the amount Mr Robin was paid in proportion, still the current movie producer is paying the current hero more or less same. Stated in such a way, it can be really inferred, that author has generalised his opinion based on past circumstances which can be more or less an advocacy approach of Mr Robin.
Third, the author has failed to recognise the fact that success of a film depends on many thing viz. storyline, cinematography, choreography, directions, locations, sets, dialogues and punch statements which are over and above the cast and crew. There has been many instances where successful actors like Arnold, Julis, Demi, Sylvester, Owen, Leonardo, Catherine, Jude etc have also added mega flops in their bucket list despite the fact that they are so successful. So, had the author introspected well, then he could have been much more judicious in his statement and conclusions.
In conclusion, the argument remains flawed for the reasons cited above. The author needed to assimilate the facts and derive proper conclusion instead of jumping on judgement. Unless the matter would have been presented in a more judicious manner, any decision would be naive and the topic remains open for debate.