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.
A movie producer, in his memo to the head of a movie studio has requested that the funding for the movie "Working Title" be increased by ten percent. The movie producer cites various reasons why the extra money is necessary and goes as far as claiming that if the extra money is not provided, the movie is virtually assured to be a failure. The reasons cited by the producer seem legible when they are read for the first time, although, a closer look reveals a few alternate possibilities that could prove the movie producer's suggestion unwarranted.
Firstly, the movie producer compares the advertisement business and the film business. The producer claims that advertising business are known for wasting time when they shoot for a promotion, hence, the director of the film, who's past experience has been with the advertising business will also waste time while shooting the film. This general claim made by the producer does not necessarily conclude that the director hired for the film will also waste time. What if the director completed his commercial for a shampoo company within the stipulated time period? This could mean that it is highly likely that the director completes the film on time, as opposed to the general thought that the movie's producer holds.
Secondly, the producer states that the inexperienced assistant producers and directors will waste time arranging things on the set. As a reason, the producer has to pay the crew and the actors, extra money for the overtime. This assertion is completely baseless since the crew is always tasked with arranging things on the sets not the directors or producers. If the crew is experienced, it could be possible that they complete the setup on time and there is no extra money to be paid. On the contrary, if the crew is inexperienced, then the delay caused for arranging the sets should be attributed to the crew and not to the assistant producers or directors.
Lastly, even if the assistant producers and directors are inexperienced, it does not mean that the film would be a failure because of their experience level. It could be possible that the movie studio hired these individuals because they saw the previous work that they were involved in. It could be the case that they bring some inputs from their previous work towards creation of the "Working Title" which probably enhances the film. This would mean that the producer's harsh statement about the success of the film is unwarranted.
In sum, there are many erroneous and dubious statements in the memo by the producer that does not accomplish the task they were meant to do. The producer's assertion is based on evidence that are ambiguous, hence, it cannot be categorically stated if the producer's prediciton would be true.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.5 out of 6
Category: Very Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 2
No. of Sentences: 19 15
No. of Words: 465 350
No. of Characters: 2248 1500
No. of Different Words: 198 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.644 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.834 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.591 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 139 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 118 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 92 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 54 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 24.474 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.77 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.579 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.361 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.603 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.145 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 227, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: who's
...otion, hence, the director of the film, whos past experience has been with the adver...
^^^^
Line 3, column 232, Rule ID: PAST_EXPERIENCE_MEMORY[1]
Message: Use simply 'experience'.
Suggestion: experience
..., hence, the director of the film, whos past experience has been with the advertising business ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 695, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'movies'' or 'movie's'?
Suggestion: movies'; movie's
...opposed to the general thought that the movies producer holds. Secondly, the produc...
^^^^^^
Line 9, column 146, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'producers'' or 'producer's'?
Suggestion: producers'; producer's
...ish the task they were meant to do. The producers assertion is based on evidence that are...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, hence, if, lastly, look, second, secondly, so, then, while, as to, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 29.0 19.6327345309 148% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.9520958084 100% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 20.0 13.6137724551 147% => OK
Pronoun: 39.0 28.8173652695 135% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 34.0 55.5748502994 61% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 16.3942115768 61% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2323.0 2260.96107784 103% => OK
No of words: 465.0 441.139720559 105% => OK
Chars per words: 4.99569892473 5.12650576532 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.64369019777 4.56307096286 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.72508845075 2.78398813304 98% => OK
Unique words: 201.0 204.123752495 98% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.432258064516 0.468620217663 92% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 715.5 705.55239521 101% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 4.96107784431 181% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 22.8473053892 105% => OK
Sentence length SD: 39.0904200774 57.8364921388 68% => OK
Chars per sentence: 122.263157895 119.503703932 102% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.4736842105 23.324526521 105% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.73684210526 5.70786347227 101% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.20758483034 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.88822355289 131% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.67664670659 128% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.266356070623 0.218282227539 122% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0934876352358 0.0743258471296 126% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0759545989532 0.0701772020484 108% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.153250316678 0.128457276422 119% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0938423775636 0.0628817314937 149% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.4 14.3799401198 100% => OK
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: 12.02 12.5979740519 95% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.09 8.32208582834 97% => OK
difficult_words: 96.0 98.500998004 97% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 12.3882235529 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.1389221557 104% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4 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.