We need to increase the funding for the movie 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 commercials for shampoo company. Since the advertisement business is notoriously wasteful it stands to reason that our director will expect to be able shoot take after take, without concern for how much time is being spent in 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 producers makes an argument that more financial investment in the move is required to ensure the success of the movie, due to relative staff incompetence and available funds. While some of his arguments could be valid, most of them are purely circumstantial and even fallacious.
Firstly, the producer believes that based on the director's lack of his experience, he will be dilatory as he has only worked in advertisment angency. He bases this argument only on the notoriety of the entire advertisment market and not on the director as an individual. It lacks leg to rule the director as flat out incompetent just he director has never taking the chair in a movie. This does not necessarily mean that he would be bad at it the first time. Despite the fact that the saying goes practice makes perfect, it is mainly a posit as there have been cases of precocious people excelling at a new craft the first time they tried it and also cases of supposed prodigies who fail at a craft they have done their whole lives. If the producer where to actually watch a few scenes been shot, then he would be able to make a more cogent argument as to the competency of the director.
The producer also assumes that the money saved by hiring cheap inexperienced and supposedly incompetent crew would translate into greater expenditures. This is not neccesarily true as more money does not always mean more success. Hiring expensive actors and assuming they would be more patient with the incompetency of the crew is a rather bold assumption and one could even argue the opposite as more expensive actors would tend to be more famous and be less tractable. If the areas in which these money is being invested could be better analyzed, then a stronger argument could made on why more money is needed.
In addition to the director, the producer also believes that the rest of the crew would be bad and aslo require many takes. As result of the multiple takes required, shooting scenes would longer than normal and the crew would require to be paid overtime. Just he wrote the director of due to association with the notorious ad companies, he now also writes the crew off based on their association with the director. If he took time appraised the crew individually and actually watched them perform their jobs, then he would make a more accurate estimation of their future perfomance. He might even be surprised to see that they work faster than expected.
Therefore there is not enough to evidence to njustify the producer's req
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-08-15 | Anish Sapkota | 58 | view |
| 2023-07-18 | Gnyana | 58 | view |
| 2023-07-16 | Technoblade | 66 | view |
| 2023-03-16 | Yam Kumar Oli | 58 | view |
| 2022-10-13 | nethra2010 | 32 | view |
- We need to increase the funding for the movie 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 commercials for shampoo company Since the advertisement business is n 58
- A nation should require all of its students to study the same national curriculum until they enter college 66
- All too often companies hire outside consultants to suggest ways for the company to operate more efficiently If companies were to spend more time listening to their own employees such consultants would be unnecessary 66
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 5 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 9 2
No. of Sentences: 18 15
No. of Words: 438 350
No. of Characters: 2047 1500
No. of Different Words: 219 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.575 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.674 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.569 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 121 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 93 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 80 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 42 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 24.333 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.615 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.611 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.333 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.393 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.202 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 2 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 15, Rule ID: AGREEMENT_SENT_START[1]
Message: You should probably use 'make'.
Suggestion: make
The producers makes an argument that more financial investm...
^^^^^
Line 2, column 536, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
...es practice makes perfect, it is mainly a posit as there have been cases of precocious ...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 493, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'this money' or 'these moneys', 'these monies'?
Suggestion: this money; these moneys; these monies
...e less tractable. If the areas in which these money is being invested could be better analy...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 580, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[1]
Message: The verb 'could' requires the base form of the verb: 'make'
Suggestion: make
...nalyzed, then a stronger argument could made on why more money is needed. In additi...
^^^^
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Therefore,
...e that they work faster than expected. Therefore there is not enough to evidence to njus...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 59, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'producers'' or 'producer's'?
Suggestion: producers'; producer's
... not enough to evidence to njustify the producers req
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, first, firstly, if, so, then, therefore, while, as to, in addition
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 19.6327345309 112% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.9520958084 116% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 11.1786427146 98% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 13.6137724551 73% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 38.0 28.8173652695 132% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 47.0 55.5748502994 85% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 16.3942115768 98% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2083.0 2260.96107784 92% => OK
No of words: 438.0 441.139720559 99% => OK
Chars per words: 4.75570776256 5.12650576532 93% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.57476223824 4.56307096286 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.63439949026 2.78398813304 95% => OK
Unique words: 217.0 204.123752495 106% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.495433789954 0.468620217663 106% => OK
syllable_count: 674.1 705.55239521 96% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 4.96107784431 161% => OK
Article: 4.0 8.76447105788 46% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => 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: 18.0 19.7664670659 91% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 22.8473053892 105% => OK
Sentence length SD: 53.5363324191 57.8364921388 93% => OK
Chars per sentence: 115.722222222 119.503703932 97% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.3333333333 23.324526521 104% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.55555555556 5.70786347227 80% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 5.25449101796 114% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.67664670659 64% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0769738030714 0.218282227539 35% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0298577377979 0.0743258471296 40% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0273843734658 0.0701772020484 39% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0375307233529 0.128457276422 29% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0404297823677 0.0628817314937 64% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.2 14.3799401198 92% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 55.58 48.3550499002 115% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.197005988 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.62 12.5979740519 84% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.65 8.32208582834 104% => OK
difficult_words: 106.0 98.500998004 108% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 12.3882235529 93% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.1389221557 104% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 16.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.