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 commercials 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.”
Write a response in which you examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on these assumptions and what the implications are for the argument if the assumptions prove unwarranted.
The argument concludes that arranging extra money will make a movie better in quality and to prevent its failure. The premises cited to support this are saved money will help to pay actors and crew for extra hours they will spend in waiting. The argument stands weak due to some fallacious assumptions and ignorance of other factors.
Firstly the most fallacious assumption the argument makes that increase in funding to pay the actors and crew for the extra hours they spend in waiting will increase in quality of movie. There stand no logical connection between the two. A movie quality and success depends on a good story line, how actors performed and how the movie reciprocated with the audience. Even with the increase in funding will not directly imbibe such qualities. The argument stands weak if the assumption stood unwarranted
Secondly, the argument assumes that the director who has been shooting commercials which was notoriously wasteful till date if given a chance to shoot a film will shoot take after take without any concern about the time of a scene. Well everyone gets tired after some work. Its hard to expect anyone to do continuous work without any break unless its a robot. The shoots for a movie can be very difficult then shoots taken for a commercials. If a director had to shoot in humid arid land or in some desert then it will be very difficult to take continuous shoot. A shampoo commercial director had most of the time had to shoot indoor not outdoor. he assumption that director will be able to shoot take after take stands weak and can more probably increase the production time.
The argument also assumes that money saved hiring inexperienced assistants and directors will not cause any effect in quality of the films. The director of the movie who stays with the crew most of the time and shoots the entire money play a pivotal role in the movie even if he/she is not present. It is the director who takes the decision on how to shoot a scene in best possible way, encourages actors to perform stunts and help in maintaining the coherence in the movie. A inexperienced director can substantially degrade the quality even if he got best possible actors, story-line etc. Hence the argument wrongly assume money saved in hiring inexperienced director to spend to actors and crew will not cause any degradation in quality of the film.
Hence the argument stands weak due to some fallacious assumptions. The argument can be strengthened if it properly justifies above assumptions.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-11-10 | AAAA2222 | 85 | view |
| 2019-11-04 | Roshan Dhakal | 37 | view |
| 2019-09-25 | TEJAS PATIL | 51 | view |
| 2019-09-18 | himanshupk | 29 | view |
| 2019-07-20 | kaziass | 86 | view |
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 243, 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.
...extra hours they will spend in waiting. The argument stands weak due to some fallac...
^^^
Line 5, column 348, Rule ID: IT_IS[6]
Message: Did you mean 'it's' (='it is') instead of 'its' (possessive pronoun)?
Suggestion: it's; it is
...ontinuous work without any break unless its a robot. The shoots for a movie can be ...
^^^
Line 5, column 428, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[1]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'a commercial' or simply 'commercials'?
Suggestion: a commercial; commercials
...be very difficult then shoots taken for a commercials. If a director had to shoot in humid ar...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 648, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: He
...e time had to shoot indoor not outdoor. he assumption that director will be able t...
^^
Line 7, column 366, Rule ID: THE_SUPERLATIVE[4]
Message: A determiner is probably missing here: 'in the best'.
Suggestion: in the best
...es the decision on how to shoot a scene in best possible way, encourages actors to perf...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 476, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'An' instead of 'A' if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g. 'an article', 'an hour'
Suggestion: An
...maintaining the coherence in the movie. A inexperienced director can substantiall...
^
Line 7, column 550, Rule ID: THE_SUPERLATIVE[4]
Message: A determiner is probably missing here: 'got the best'.
Suggestion: got the best
...antially degrade the quality even if he got best possible actors, story-line etc. Hence ...
^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 1, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Hence,
... degradation in quality of the film. Hence the argument stands weak due to some fa...
^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'first', 'firstly', 'hence', 'if', 'second', 'secondly', 'so', 'then', 'well']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.241758241758 0.25644967241 94% => OK
Verbs: 0.171428571429 0.15541462614 110% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0923076923077 0.0836205057962 110% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0571428571429 0.0520304965353 110% => OK
Pronouns: 0.021978021978 0.0272364105082 81% => OK
Prepositions: 0.114285714286 0.125424944231 91% => OK
Participles: 0.0351648351648 0.0416121511921 85% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.60407904846 2.79052419416 93% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0373626373626 0.026700313972 140% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.001811407834 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.131868131868 0.113004496875 117% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0307692307692 0.0255425247493 120% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0153846153846 0.0127820249294 120% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2527.0 2731.13054187 93% => OK
No of words: 430.0 446.07635468 96% => OK
Chars per words: 5.87674418605 6.12365571057 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.55372829156 4.57801047555 99% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.318604651163 0.378187486979 84% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.241860465116 0.287650121315 84% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.179069767442 0.208842608468 86% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.0953488372093 0.135150697306 71% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.60407904846 2.79052419416 93% => OK
Unique words: 188.0 207.018472906 91% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.437209302326 0.469332199767 93% => OK
Word variations: 47.4101291913 52.1807786196 91% => OK
How many sentences: 21.0 20.039408867 105% => OK
Sentence length: 20.4761904762 23.2022227129 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 55.4387570416 57.7814097925 96% => OK
Chars per sentence: 120.333333333 141.986410481 85% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.4761904762 23.2022227129 88% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.47619047619 0.724660767414 66% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 8.0 3.58251231527 223% => Correct essay format wanted or double check grammar & spelling issues after essay writing.
Readability: 44.6622369878 51.9672348444 86% => OK
Elegance: 1.56140350877 1.8405768891 85% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.463304310991 0.441005458295 105% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.133156081995 0.135418324435 98% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0810594741088 0.0829849096947 98% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.555440318396 0.58762219726 95% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.167288980253 0.147661913831 113% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.191150959056 0.193483328276 99% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.101075790006 0.0970749176394 104% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.346627455885 0.42659136922 81% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0853607902686 0.0774707102158 110% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.314364088265 0.312017818177 101% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.10216914385 0.0698173142475 146% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.33743842365 120% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 6.87684729064 160% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.82512315271 0% => More neutral sentences wanted.
Positive topic words: 8.0 6.46551724138 124% => OK
Negative topic words: 5.0 5.36822660099 93% => OK
Neutral topic words: 0.0 2.82389162562 0% => More neutral topic words wanted.
Total topic words: 13.0 14.657635468 89% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 Out of 6 -- The score is based on the average performance of 20,000 argument essays. This e-grader is not smart enough to check on arguments.
---------------------
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.