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.”
The memorandum describes a plea from a movie director to the head of the movie studio. The producer mentions an elaborate justification for his demand of increased funding for the movie. However, on examining the argument, certain assumptions come to light, that if proven unwarranted, will invalidate the justification for the demand of increased funding. These assumptions and their implications are discussed below.
Firstly, the producer states how increasing the funding for his movie by ten percent will ensure a quality product. This an assumption as no one can guarantee whether the movie will be upto the mark. There can be a situation where even after increasing the funding, the movie fails to attract the audience and is criticised for being mediocre. Thus, to make the argument even more persuasive, the producer must present compelling reasons to convinve the studio head that the movie will be of the best quality and will not dissapoint.
Secondly, the author mentions the reason for the need of extra funding as working with a first time director. The author then mentions how the director has only shot shampoo commercials and since the advertising business is profligate and spends wastefully, the director will be prodigal too. This is an assumption that seems rather unwarranted. For instance, the director could be very economical and efficient. The director may finish every scene before time and infact save money. This assumption can have dire implications on the argument. The producer needs to prove that the director is wasteful and a perfectionist, who has no concern about the time each scene takes. Only then does the demand for increased funding make sense.
Thirdly, the producer mentions how relatively inexperienced crew has been hired in order to reduce the expenditure on salaries. These savings will be in turn utilised to pay the actors and the crew for the extra hours that they will spend. Here the producer again assumes that the movie will take extra time to be shot. This may not always be the case. For example, if the movie is a simple and short movie that only requires one set and few changes in the dynamic, then the shooting might take relatively lesser time than movies like action thrillers. This assumption needs to properly justified to truly convince the studio about the funding increase.
Furthermore, the memorandum assumes that the only way the movie will be a success is by getting the extra money. The producer assumes that the movie will be a sucess if they just get the funding. The movie studio might not want to invest more in a movie that has hired a callous director and crew. It is imperative for the producer to persuasively mention how despite the inexperienced crew and director, the movie will be a success and the money is the only thing preventing it from being a top quality film.
To conclude, the memorandum must provide reasons for each assumption and convince the studio that the extra funding is a neccessity. The producer must fill the gaps present in the argument in order to save the movie. The argument must prove that the director is wasteful and will spend extra time on each scene, thus increasing costs of the shooting. If these assumptions are proved, the argument will be reinforced and strengthened.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-07-18 | Gnyana | 58 | view |
| 2023-07-16 | Technoblade | 66 | view |
| 2023-03-16 | Yam Kumar Oli | 58 | view |
| 2022-09-14 | Sumilak | 78 | view |
| 2022-01-22 | shyamforever | 59 | view |
- 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 68
- 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 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 previous exper 66
- Claim An action is morally correct if the amount of good that results from the action is greater than the amount of bad that results from the action Reason When assessing the morality of an action the results of the action are more important than the inte 50
- Claim An action is morally correct if the amount of good that results from the action is greater than the amount of bad that results from the action Reason When assessing the morality of an action the results of the action are more important than the inte 66
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 30 15
No. of Words: 551 350
No. of Characters: 2685 1500
No. of Different Words: 221 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.845 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.873 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.602 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 173 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 144 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 103 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 55 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 18.367 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.627 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.5 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.301 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.498 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.071 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 6 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, firstly, furthermore, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, then, third, thirdly, thus, for example, for instance
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 27.0 19.6327345309 138% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 27.0 12.9520958084 208% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 17.0 11.1786427146 152% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 13.6137724551 103% => OK
Pronoun: 27.0 28.8173652695 94% => OK
Preposition: 44.0 55.5748502994 79% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 16.3942115768 104% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2755.0 2260.96107784 122% => OK
No of words: 551.0 441.139720559 125% => OK
Chars per words: 5.0 5.12650576532 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.84493438435 4.56307096286 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.69478020922 2.78398813304 97% => OK
Unique words: 229.0 204.123752495 112% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.415607985481 0.468620217663 89% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 861.3 705.55239521 122% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 4.96107784431 181% => OK
Article: 20.0 8.76447105788 228% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 30.0 19.7664670659 152% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 22.8473053892 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 45.1801824796 57.8364921388 78% => OK
Chars per sentence: 91.8333333333 119.503703932 77% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.3666666667 23.324526521 79% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.06666666667 5.70786347227 71% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 15.0 8.20758483034 183% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => OK
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: 0.30791807527 0.218282227539 141% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0945333088346 0.0743258471296 127% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0767562614261 0.0701772020484 109% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.183473522583 0.128457276422 143% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0464273856971 0.0628817314937 74% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.3 14.3799401198 79% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 48.3550499002 110% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 12.197005988 84% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.72 12.5979740519 93% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.6 8.32208582834 91% => OK
difficult_words: 107.0 98.500998004 109% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 12.3882235529 69% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.1389221557 83% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => 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.