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 exper

Essay topics:

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.”

In the memo sent by the movie producer to the head of the movie studio, it was suggested that the funding assigned for the production of a movie "Working Title" must be increased by 10% to avoid the failure of this movie. The producer made this suggestion on the premises of the work experiences of the director -presumed profligate- and assistant directors and producers that are recently employed by the studio in the production of the concerned movie. However, the suggestion of the producer is filled with three unwarranted assumptions that must be explored before the argument can be considerably evaluated and persuasive for more funding.

First, the producer assumed that the newly employed director would be dilatory and spendthrift by making a generalizations of a plebian belief about the advertising business. In other words, the producer assumed that all directors that have worked in the advertising business must be time incautious and negligent of the financial implications. It is possible that the new director is the exception in such common trend. He or she might be someone that values time and strongly belief in the economical production of movies. What if the motivation behind the director leaving the advertising business was a result of his or her disdain towards the supposed financial negligent and wasteful timing? We do not just know. If either of these scenarios is true or the raised question remained unanswered, the producer suggestion is considerably about his or her whimsical beliefs about the new director and the suggestion of funds increment is unpersuasive.

Also, the producer assumed that the supposedly inexperienced assistant directors would be intractable. Profoundly, the producer thinks the assistant directors and producers are employed with unstrict policies by the human resources department. It is likely that movie studio received an enormous amount of applicants for such positions and only the distinctive few are selected for the position. This distinctive few might have gather substantial undocumented experiences from movie production during undergraduate studies, from associations, drama groups in churches and many more. Of course, such competitive and exceptional accepted applicant for the role of assistant producer or director will most likely be sagacious and easy to control in far less time than expected. If this scenario have little or considerable merits, then the producer assumption the waste of time and resources by the newly employed assistant directors and producers does not hold water and will not in any way lead to the failure of the film and consequently no substantial basis for funding.

In furtherance, the author assumed that the salary of the new assistant directors and producers are not commensurate to the financial implications of employing experienced ones. It is possible that the movie studio have just embraced advocacy for decent working environment and as such choose to pay the assistant directors better than the previously held beliefs. If this scenario is true, then the producer presumption that the movie studio have saved money is unfounded and thus an increment in the assigned funding will not be a possibility.

In conclusion, while they might be a need for increased funding for the movie production, the producer basis for such suggestion is not substantial and open to possible wrong assumptions that must be well evaluated before the increased fund suggestion can be convincing. Also, if the skills of the directors and assistant directors and producers mentioned above are exemplary as cited above, the movie is far from failure but rather might be the production of an unprecedent success story for the movie studio.

Votes
Average: 7.3 (2 votes)
Essay Categories
Essays by the user:

Comments

Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 106, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[1]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'a generalization' or simply 'generalizations'?
Suggestion: a generalization; generalizations
...d be dilatory and spendthrift by making a generalizations of a plebian belief about the advertisi...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 223, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'resources'' or 'resource's'?
Suggestion: resources'; resource's
...yed with unstrict policies by the human resources department. It is likely that movie stu...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 414, Rule ID: MANY_NN_U[6]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun might seems to be uncountable; consider using: 'little might'.
Suggestion: little might
...cted for the position. This distinctive few might have gather substantial undocumented ex...
^^^^^^^^^

Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, consequently, first, however, if, so, then, thus, well, while, in conclusion, of course, as a result, in other words

Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments

Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 32.0 19.6327345309 163% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 16.0 12.9520958084 124% => OK
Conjunction : 30.0 11.1786427146 268% => Less conjunction wanted
Relative clauses : 14.0 13.6137724551 103% => OK
Pronoun: 32.0 28.8173652695 111% => OK
Preposition: 62.0 55.5748502994 112% => OK
Nominalization: 24.0 16.3942115768 146% => OK

Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3163.0 2260.96107784 140% => OK
No of words: 590.0 441.139720559 134% => OK
Chars per words: 5.36101694915 5.12650576532 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.92848004997 4.56307096286 108% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.03349159285 2.78398813304 109% => OK
Unique words: 251.0 204.123752495 123% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.425423728814 0.468620217663 91% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 990.0 705.55239521 140% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK

A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK

Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 19.7664670659 106% => OK
Sentence length: 28.0 22.8473053892 123% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 63.4481236846 57.8364921388 110% => OK
Chars per sentence: 150.619047619 119.503703932 126% => OK
Words per sentence: 28.0952380952 23.324526521 120% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.04761904762 5.70786347227 106% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.88822355289 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 9.0 4.67664670659 192% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?

Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.336909775911 0.218282227539 154% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.108817175804 0.0743258471296 146% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.08448059598 0.0701772020484 120% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.211262518548 0.128457276422 164% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0651890548615 0.0628817314937 104% => OK

Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.9 14.3799401198 124% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 34.6 48.3550499002 72% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.4 12.197005988 126% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.1 12.5979740519 112% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.64 8.32208582834 104% => OK
difficult_words: 135.0 98.500998004 137% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 18.5 12.3882235529 149% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.2 11.1389221557 119% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => 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.

Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.5 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 8 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 8 2
No. of Sentences: 21 15
No. of Words: 590 350
No. of Characters: 3094 1500
No. of Different Words: 246 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.928 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.244 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.951 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 227 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 189 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 164 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 110 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 28.095 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.619 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.524 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.335 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.525 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.125 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5