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.”
According to the letter sent by producer to the head of movie studio, the movies working title is bound to fail unless the funds for the film are increased by 10%. Producer asserts that the novice directors is likely to take a lot of time in shooting and thereby causing the uptick in expenditures on the fee of actors and crew members as they would have to work extra hours. He asserts that whatever money money has been saved by hiring such inexperience crew will thus be offset and cause movie to fail. However, before this argument can be properly analysed, two specific pieces of evidence must be collected and analysed.
First, evidence must be collected to check, are their any other factors that can assure a film to fail. Producer assumes that money is the only significant factor to develop a quality product, but it seems quite absurd since there can be multiple scenarios where a film, although being well fed with money, fails to work. For instance - a script of movie can probably be abysmal enough to cause movie to fail, even after a studio spends large chunk of money. Additionally, its not only the script that can cause movie to fail, maybe the actors hired, although experienced, aren't competent enough to deliver the emotions required to play the role on screen with finesse. This can again cause audience to eschew from movie and therefore can be probably a cause of failure. If either of these scenarios has merit, then the conclusion drawn in the original argument is significantly weakened.
Secondly, the producer is estimating the experience of director in movie making field with his talent, while it seems rational at superficial layer but its quite spurious to assume anyone's artfulness just on the basis of his experience. As there can be the case that novice producer has something new and fresh to offer and can probably be a breakthrough from the conventional films that people have gone indifferent from watching them over again and again. This new experience can actually assess in films success rather than film failure, as ticket sales to watch something fresh might offset every unpropitious factor that his inexperience brought to the table. Moreover, IT is unclear whether shooting an add film and shooting a film requires different set of skills, and if the skills aren't that much different in both the fields than the experience of director can't be ignored. If any of the above presumptions come the producer's argument doesn't hold water.
In conclusion, the argument as it stands now, is considerably flawed due to its reliance on several unwarranted assumptions. If the author is able to provide the two pieces of evidence stated above and perhaps conduct systematic research study, then it will be be possible to determine the producer's assertion.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 17 15
No. of Words: 474 350
No. of Characters: 2282 1500
No. of Different Words: 246 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.666 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.814 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.576 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 157 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 113 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 87 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 42 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 27.882 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.737 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.765 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.317 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.515 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.099 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 402, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: money
...k extra hours. He asserts that whatever money money has been saved by hiring such inexperie...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 574, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: aren't
...the actors hired, although experienced, arent competent enough to deliver the emotion...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 614, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ng fresh might offset every unpropitious factor that his inexperience brought to ...
^^
Line 5, column 708, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
...oreover, IT is unclear whether shooting an add film and shooting a film requires diffe...
^^^^^^
Line 5, column 792, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: aren't
...ferent set of skills, and if the skills arent that much different in both the fields ...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 869, Rule ID: CANT[1]
Message: Did you mean 'can't' or 'cannot'?
Suggestion: can't; cannot
... fields than the experience of director cant be ignored. If any of the above presump...
^^^^
Line 5, column 886, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “If” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...experience of director cant be ignored. If any of the above presumptions come the ...
^^
Line 5, column 928, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'producers'' or 'producer's'?
Suggestion: producers'; producer's
... any of the above presumptions come the producers argument doesnt hold water. In conc...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 947, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...resumptions come the producers argument doesnt hold water. In conclusion, the argu...
^^^^^^
Line 7, column 3, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ducers argument doesnt hold water. In conclusion, the argument as it stands no...
^^
Line 7, column 260, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: be
...systematic research study, then it will be be possible to determine the producers ass...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 292, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'producers'' or 'producer's'?
Suggestion: producers'; producer's
...it will be be possible to determine the producers assertion.
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, but, first, however, if, may, moreover, second, secondly, so, then, therefore, thus, well, while, for instance
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 24.0 19.6327345309 122% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 16.0 12.9520958084 124% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 11.1786427146 116% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 13.6137724551 73% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 28.0 28.8173652695 97% => OK
Preposition: 64.0 55.5748502994 115% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 16.3942115768 104% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2330.0 2260.96107784 103% => OK
No of words: 471.0 441.139720559 107% => OK
Chars per words: 4.94692144374 5.12650576532 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.65859790218 4.56307096286 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.6209159965 2.78398813304 94% => OK
Unique words: 252.0 204.123752495 123% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.535031847134 0.468620217663 114% => OK
syllable_count: 733.5 705.55239521 104% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Article: 3.0 8.76447105788 34% => OK
Subordination: 9.0 2.70958083832 332% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 19.7664670659 86% => OK
Sentence length: 27.0 22.8473053892 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 50.5598415529 57.8364921388 87% => OK
Chars per sentence: 137.058823529 119.503703932 115% => OK
Words per sentence: 27.7058823529 23.324526521 119% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.05882352941 5.70786347227 124% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 12.0 5.25449101796 228% => Less language errors wanted.
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.20758483034 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 6.88822355289 160% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.67664670659 43% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.186527385588 0.218282227539 85% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0681881155214 0.0743258471296 92% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0987117343969 0.0701772020484 141% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.114284988899 0.128457276422 89% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0872103593722 0.0628817314937 139% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.7 14.3799401198 109% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 44.07 48.3550499002 91% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 12.197005988 113% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.73 12.5979740519 93% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.8 8.32208582834 106% => OK
difficult_words: 114.0 98.500998004 116% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 12.3882235529 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.8 11.1389221557 115% => 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.