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.”
While the movie producer may have a legitimate concern about the success of the movie Working Title due to working with a new director and the additional remuneration to the actors and crew, it is due to the lack of solid evidence and data in the memo, which makes it difficult for us to evaluate the strength of the argument. Without references to the reasons as to why an additional 10 percent is required and not a 5 percent or 15 percent for that matter or the estimated extra amount to be paid for the overtime dues, we cannot substantiate the author's argument with certain. The conclusion put forth regarding the failure of the movie in the absence of the extra funds relies on assumptions which are rather weak, unconvincing and hence need a much closer examination.
Firstly, the author makes a reference in the memo to increase the funding of the movie by 10 percent without any reasons as to how he arrived at that figure. Perhaps it is possible that 10% may not prove to be sufficient for the movie and he may need much more than that. Had the memo cited the actual reasons for the increase in expenses and their respective costs, we could have some sort of evidence to make a decision. Consequently, without actual calculation or estimating the underlying expenses or providing details, the argument difficult to evaluate.
Furthermore, the author also remarks that due to working with a first-time director who has only shooted one commercial in the past, they may require additional retakes thus causing a waste of time and money. This again is just a hypothesis on the part of the author. It is highly plausible that the directors first commercial may have been very successful and the director in question has the skills which can transfer into the movie. Had the author stated that the last shoot of the director was highly wasteful, there could have been a reason to agree with the memo, but the absence of such evidence cannot justify any kind of conclusion. Without providing on the success or failure of his previous shoot or his skills, we cannot make assumptions about the success or failure of the movie based on him being a first time director. It is due to the omission of such data, we are in a precarious situation to evaluate the argument.
Additionally, the author has mentioned that the there shall be a higher cost involved due to the payment of the crew and the actors due to the extra hours spent waiting for arrangement by the directors. It is probable that these extra costs may not arise, because of the proper planning and communication between the directors and the assistant producers. Hence, instead of forecasting the negatives which may occur, the author should try to find out ways through which the expenses could be lowered. Since the memo makes no reference to any such efforts to reduce costs, this again is a fallacy of the memo in question.
In conclusion, though the author could be certainly correct in his predictions regarding the movie, it is due to the lack of supporting evidence and examples, that one is left under the impression that the claim is more of a wishful thinking than substantive evidence. Had the memo included a solid example wherein the lack of such funds led to a similar movie being a disaster, we cannot come to a conclusion and hence, the argument fails to deliver.
| 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 |
- The following appeared in a memo from New Ventures Consulting to the president of HobCo, Inc., a chain of hobby shops."Our team has completed its research on suitable building sites for a new HobCo hobby Shop in the city of Grilldon. We discovered that th 42
- “Men and women, because of their inherent physical differences, are not equally suited for many tasks. Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim. In developing and supporting your position, be sure to 50
- 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 previou 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 success of a series of unmanned space probes and satellites has demonstrated that a great 29
- The first step to self-knowledge is rejection of the familiar. 58
Comments
Essay evaluation report
argument 1 -- not OK. maybe the funding has been pretty high enough. or funding is not the issue for good quality movies.
argument 2 -- better argument: Experience of a person cannot be linked with the success of a particular project.
argument 3 -- It is not mentioned in the memo whether these actors and crew members are paid on hourly basis or contractual basis.
--------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 19 15
No. of Words: 585 350
No. of Characters: 2712 1500
No. of Different Words: 244 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.918 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.636 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.59 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 180 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 148 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 98 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 55 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 30.789 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.957 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.789 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.345 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.547 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.143 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 550, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...ertime dues, we cannot substantiate the authors argument with certain. The conclusion p...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, consequently, first, firstly, furthermore, hence, if, may, regarding, so, thus, while, as to, in conclusion, kind of, sort of
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 23.0 19.6327345309 117% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 20.0 12.9520958084 154% => OK
Conjunction : 22.0 11.1786427146 197% => OK
Relative clauses : 17.0 13.6137724551 125% => OK
Pronoun: 35.0 28.8173652695 121% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 83.0 55.5748502994 149% => OK
Nominalization: 23.0 16.3942115768 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2775.0 2260.96107784 123% => OK
No of words: 585.0 441.139720559 133% => OK
Chars per words: 4.74358974359 5.12650576532 93% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.9180050066 4.56307096286 108% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.66108335069 2.78398813304 96% => OK
Unique words: 256.0 204.123752495 125% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.437606837607 0.468620217663 93% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 874.8 705.55239521 124% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 14.0 4.96107784431 282% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.22255489022 166% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 30.0 22.8473053892 131% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 61.2789814978 57.8364921388 106% => OK
Chars per sentence: 146.052631579 119.503703932 122% => OK
Words per sentence: 30.7894736842 23.324526521 132% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.15789473684 5.70786347227 125% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.88822355289 131% => OK
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: 0.240092158913 0.218282227539 110% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0726009773094 0.0743258471296 98% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0655164181972 0.0701772020484 93% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.138503734868 0.128457276422 108% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0752656353495 0.0628817314937 120% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.3 14.3799401198 113% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.49 48.3550499002 102% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 12.197005988 113% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.8 12.5979740519 86% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.44 8.32208582834 101% => OK
difficult_words: 123.0 98.500998004 125% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 28.5 12.3882235529 230% => Linsear_write_formula is high.
gunning_fog: 14.0 11.1389221557 126% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => 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.