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.
The given argument suggests that the funding for the movie Working Title needs to increase by 10 percent because the director who is associated with the movie is only working for the first time as a movie director and has previous experience of shooting commercials is notoriously wasteful. The movie producer also states that if they fail to get the 10 percent increase in funding, the movie is assured to fail. The given argument has some stated or unstated presumptions which best sound dubious and without which we cannot conclude that the failure of the movie is inevitable.
Firstly, the author assumes that the advertising business is notoriously wasteful. Which in turn assumes that the first time director for the movie, who has previous experience of shooting commercials for a shampoo company will take some shoot take after take. It might be possible that while shooting these short length advertisements, the author would know how to extract the best from the actors in a few takes. The notoriously wasteful advertising business does not tell anything about the director's personality. It might be the case that the director would be a fully engrossed and involved, hardworking person. There is no proof regarding the director's wastefulness, which makes the argument look feeble. It is assumed that the director would not have any concern regarding how much time is sent on any one scene. This is a very big assumption made by the movie producer and he has not stated any evidence which would support this. Hence, without any evidence, the argument does not hold good.
Furthermore, the movie producer states that they have saved money by hiring naive assistant producers and directors. He or she goes on to say that this saved money would go to the actors and crew for the overtime of the extra hours caused due to naive assistant directors and producers. It is assumed that the actors would want extra money for the overtime done by them. It is not necessary that all actors would want extra time for the overtime they do. Some might even do the work for no charge because of the enthusiasm and their loyalty, faithfulness devoted to their work. The crew might also experience the same thing. It is further assumed that since the assistant directors and producers are naive, they would take extra time to arrange things. This could be proven wrong. It is very much possible that the assistant directors and producers reach the set before time and ensure that no delay in work or overtime is caused by them.
Finally, it is assumed that if the movie does not get 10 percent increase in funding, it is going to fail. There is no support provided that the movie would fail if it does not get the 10 percent increase in funding. The argument fails to produce support or evidence for the presumptions made by the movie producer in his or her memo. Therefore, in conclusion, I would say that the author's argument is filled with flaws and incomplete and incogent reasons. Had the author kept the above suggestions and points in mind, his argument would have been bolstered much better with valid facts, evidences or statistics. The argument would also be more convincing and well-reasoned.
| 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 |
- These days if you pick up a newspaper or turn on the TV or radio you may hear or read about the advantages of driverless cars also called self driving or autonomous cars The technology is simple to understand using sensors and computers these cars can dri 73
- The first step to self knowledge is rejection of the familiar Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain your reasoning for the position you take In developing and supporting your po 58
- While the Department of Education in the state of Attra suggests that high school students be assigned homework every day the data from a recent statewide survey of high school math and science teachers give us reason to question the usefulness of daily h 50
- A person who knowingly commits a crime has broken the social contract and should not retain any civil rights or the right to benefit from his or her own labor Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim a 58
- It is better for people to choose jobs that come with high salaries even though they do not enjoy doing it than to choose jobs that they enjoy but come with low salaries 73
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.5 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 27 15
No. of Words: 545 350
No. of Characters: 2608 1500
No. of Different Words: 217 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.832 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.785 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.501 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 161 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 135 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 97 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 49 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.185 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.781 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.519 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.305 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.462 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.168 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 414, 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.
... funding, the movie is assured to fail. The given argument has some stated or unsta...
^^^
Line 3, column 495, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'directors'' or 'director's'?
Suggestion: directors'; director's
...siness does not tell anything about the directors personality. It might be the case that ...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 650, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'directors'' or 'director's'?
Suggestion: directors'; director's
...person. There is no proof regarding the directors wastefulness, which makes the argument ...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 383, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...re, in conclusion, I would say that the authors argument is filled with flaws and incom...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, first, firstly, furthermore, hence, if, look, regarding, so, therefore, thus, well, while, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 26.0 19.6327345309 132% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 19.0 12.9520958084 147% => OK
Conjunction : 21.0 11.1786427146 188% => OK
Relative clauses : 25.0 13.6137724551 184% => OK
Pronoun: 49.0 28.8173652695 170% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 46.0 55.5748502994 83% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 16.3942115768 91% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2661.0 2260.96107784 118% => OK
No of words: 545.0 441.139720559 124% => OK
Chars per words: 4.88256880734 5.12650576532 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.83169070408 4.56307096286 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.57061797263 2.78398813304 92% => OK
Unique words: 222.0 204.123752495 109% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.407339449541 0.468620217663 87% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 822.6 705.55239521 117% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 15.0 4.96107784431 302% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 12.0 8.76447105788 137% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.70958083832 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
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: 27.0 19.7664670659 137% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 50.0006035629 57.8364921388 86% => OK
Chars per sentence: 98.5555555556 119.503703932 82% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.1851851852 23.324526521 87% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.40740740741 5.70786347227 77% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.20758483034 122% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 13.0 6.88822355289 189% => 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: 0.286611251377 0.218282227539 131% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0700137056414 0.0743258471296 94% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0960619306729 0.0701772020484 137% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.186410008636 0.128457276422 145% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.105450426211 0.0628817314937 168% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.6 14.3799401198 81% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 59.64 48.3550499002 123% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 12.197005988 81% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.02 12.5979740519 87% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.18 8.32208582834 86% => OK
difficult_words: 88.0 98.500998004 89% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 18.0 12.3882235529 145% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.9071856287 84% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.