A movie producer sent the following memo to the head of the movie studio.
"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 commericals 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".
The argument by the movie producer that increasing the funding for the stated movie is paramount to ensuring delivery of a quality product is flawed as the conclusion rests on some assumptions that are not logically sound.
First, the argument makes a gross oversimplification on the ability of the producers to deliver effectively by making claims to their nascent experience which necessarily does not translate to poor performance on the movie production as insinuated by the movie producer. Why does the movie producer hastily make a sweeping generalization about the wastefulness of the advertising industry without making a case to the director about how solvent they are and the need to work within the budget they would delineate? The argument presents the director as someone that would act arbitrarily without deference for what the movie owners would like to see in their movie.
Also, the argument projects that funding is the real deal in achieving the projection of a successful movie. By doing so, the movie producer assumes that once funding is increased, this would translate to a quality movie. He fails to factor in several considerations that the success of a movie is hinged upon. How would the movie release be viewed by teeming consumers? What would be their feedback on the movie quality and how much is it expecting to rake in the global box office? These are all questions that the unstated assumptions fail to answers?
Lastly, while the length of shooting the movie might necessarily not be insidious, the producer posits that the actor's and unionized crew waiting time would present a strain on their expenditure and therefore a need for increased funding. While this me a thoughtful recourse to follow, the producer also neglects how impactful the actors might be in delivering their jobs. What efforts are being made that the right cast is being employed in order to prevent a botched job?
In conclusion, the conclusion that increased funding would ensure a quality product is unfounded due to the critiques of the stated and unstated assumptions in the preceding paragraphs. Ultimately, the argument would have been strengthened by making a whole scale assessment of what contributes to the success of a movie rather than relying on a causal link between increased funding translating into the movie success.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-07-18 | Gnyana | 58 | view |
| 2023-07-16 | Technoblade | 66 | view |
| 2023-03-16 | Yam Kumar Oli | 58 | view |
| 2022-09-14 | Sumilak | 78 | view |
| 2022-01-22 | shyamforever | 59 | view |
- The powerful are most respected not when they exercise their power but when they refrain from exercising it 50
- A person who knowingly commits a crime has broken the social contract and should not retain any civil rights or the rights to benefit from his or her own labor 79
- A movie producer sent the following memo to the head of the movie studio 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 exper 58
- The first step to self knowledge is rejection of the familiar 66
- The following opinion was provided in a letter to the editor of a national aeronautics magazine Manned space flight is costly and dangerous Moreover the recent successes of a series of unmanned space probes and satellites has demonstrated that a great dea 77
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: 15 15
No. of Words: 383 350
No. of Characters: 1932 1500
No. of Different Words: 187 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.424 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.044 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.841 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 139 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 115 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 79 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 53 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 25.533 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.275 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.4 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.382 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.608 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.114 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 547, Rule ID: TO_NON_BASE[1]
Message: The verb after "to" should be in the base form: 'answer'.
Suggestion: answer
...s that the unstated assumptions fail to answers? Lastly, while the length of shootin...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, if, lastly, so, then, therefore, while, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 19.6327345309 97% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.9520958084 100% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 11.1786427146 45% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 23.0 28.8173652695 80% => OK
Preposition: 53.0 55.5748502994 95% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 16.3942115768 79% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1981.0 2260.96107784 88% => OK
No of words: 383.0 441.139720559 87% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.17232375979 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.42384287591 4.56307096286 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.88048373798 2.78398813304 103% => OK
Unique words: 186.0 204.123752495 91% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.485639686684 0.468620217663 104% => OK
syllable_count: 611.1 705.55239521 87% => 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: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => 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: 15.0 19.7664670659 76% => 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: 25.0 22.8473053892 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 68.1673105104 57.8364921388 118% => OK
Chars per sentence: 132.066666667 119.503703932 111% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.5333333333 23.324526521 109% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.73333333333 5.70786347227 83% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 6.88822355289 44% => 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: 0.286153489609 0.218282227539 131% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.100911668549 0.0743258471296 136% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.065355189333 0.0701772020484 93% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.178803435102 0.128457276422 139% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0535466477779 0.0628817314937 85% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.7 14.3799401198 109% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 46.1 48.3550499002 95% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.0 12.197005988 107% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.0 12.5979740519 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.12 8.32208582834 110% => OK
difficult_words: 103.0 98.500998004 105% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 20.0 12.3882235529 161% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.1389221557 108% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => 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.