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/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
The movie producer suggests that funding for the movie should be increased by 10% if a quality product is to be achieved. He bases this suggestion on a few reasons, citing the reduction in cost efficiency as a result of the inexperienced manager and the expected increase in costs due to the expected greater hours which actors and unionised crew will work. This argument is however based on weak assumptions which if proven unwarranted, would completely discredit the usefulness of the suggestion. Some of these assumptions are explained in the paragraphs that follow.
Firstly, the writer assumes that actors and unionised crew must be paid per hour spent. However, he didn't conider the possibility that they may be paid a fixed monthly amount. Also, what if payments are made per project? In the case that this assumption doesn't hold up, the argument will be unnecessary and proven baseless.
Secondly, the movie producer assmes that the relatively inexprienced assistant producers are necessarily slower. However, being relatively inexperienced doesn't necessarily mean that they are slower in arranging things. Also, the writer assumes that they won't improve during this shooting. In the event that this assumption is unfounded, the assistant producers wouldn't necessarily constitute an increase in costs. The absence of an increase in cost will thus negate the need for any increase in funding and will render the argument redundant.
Finally, the movie producer assumes that the expected increase in cost outweighs the cost savings achieved by employing inexperienced staff by exactly 10% of the budget. What if the cost savings outweighs the cost of inefficiency, leading to a drop in overall costs? It is also possible that the increase in costs may occur, and will be greater than 10% of the current budget. In the former case, there would be no need to increase the budget, while in the latter case, the increase in budget would not be sufficient to create a quality product. In either case, the assumption represents an undoing to the argument that a 10% increase in funding will ensure a quality product, and the argument will be at best, specious.
In conclusion, as far these assumptions remain unsubstantiated, the argument holds no water. Hence, the movie producer needs to provide more evidence to bolster these assumptions. If enough evidence is provided, then it might become possible to consider and accept his suggestions that a 10% increase in fun
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 3 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 10 2
No. of Sentences: 21 15
No. of Words: 406 350
No. of Characters: 2020 1500
No. of Different Words: 184 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.489 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.975 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.783 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 152 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 120 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 85 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 48 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 19.333 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.46 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.81 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.301 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.526 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.114 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 416, Rule ID: IF_IS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'is'?
Suggestion: is
...however based on weak assumptions which if proven unwarranted, would completely di...
^^
Line 3, column 101, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: didn't
...ust be paid per hour spent. However, he didnt conider the possibility that they may b...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 255, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...oject? In the case that this assumption doesnt hold up, the argument will be unnecessa...
^^^^^^
Line 5, column 154, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...However, being relatively inexperienced doesnt necessarily mean that they are slower i...
^^^^^^
Line 5, column 362, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: wouldn't
...n is unfounded, the assistant producers wouldnt necessarily constitute an increase in c...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 1, 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.
... argument will be at best, specious. In conclusion, as far these assumptions re...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, first, firstly, hence, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, then, thus, while, in conclusion, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 19.6327345309 97% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 17.0 12.9520958084 131% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 11.1786427146 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 13.6137724551 110% => OK
Pronoun: 29.0 28.8173652695 101% => OK
Preposition: 43.0 55.5748502994 77% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 16.3942115768 91% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2081.0 2260.96107784 92% => OK
No of words: 401.0 441.139720559 91% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.18952618454 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.47492842339 4.56307096286 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.84470126665 2.78398813304 102% => OK
Unique words: 188.0 204.123752495 92% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.468827930175 0.468620217663 100% => OK
syllable_count: 638.1 705.55239521 90% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 12.0 8.76447105788 137% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 19.7664670659 106% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 42.20874591 57.8364921388 73% => OK
Chars per sentence: 99.0952380952 119.503703932 83% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.0952380952 23.324526521 82% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.85714285714 5.70786347227 103% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 5.25449101796 114% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.88822355289 73% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.67664670659 150% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.177505698331 0.218282227539 81% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0572121534817 0.0743258471296 77% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0747769946505 0.0701772020484 107% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.103749381005 0.128457276422 81% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0582687704271 0.0628817314937 93% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.6 14.3799401198 88% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 48.3550499002 108% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.197005988 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.82 12.5979740519 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.4 8.32208582834 101% => OK
difficult_words: 97.0 98.500998004 98% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 12.3882235529 93% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => 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.