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.
The memo sent by the producer to the movie studio contains numerous assumptions, the major underlying assumption is the prediction of more money translating into success. While it is true that a 10% increase in budget will certainly help to improve the functioning of staff, the argument lacks to provide information about various aspects of staff's ability to work in a commercial environment.
The producer mentions the director has a background in advert industry, producer further goes on to assume and question his credentials by providing information on the prodigal use of money in advert industry. While it may stand correct that advertisement industry spends wastefully on one scene - the primary reason behind which may very well be the fact that shampoo commercials as mentioned only be shot for a few seconds and needs to convey an idea efficiently in less time. Since the precedent can't be used to justify wastefulness in a commercial production, such an assumption stands no ground when compared against the fact that the director would not have to persuade the audience to buy a product rather only has to rely on much more talented actors to convey the emotions and idea of plot in a runtime multifold to the one available for a shampoo commercial.
Another assumption the producer makes is regarding the relatively inexperienced assistants to director and producers, while the new recruits may not be experienced, the assumption that they will become a hindrance in the film's production and cause delays recurrently seems a prophetic prediction that is short-sighted. In addition, if the problem is observed to become recurrent, the budget can be balanced by reducing the wages of such individuals after holding them accountable for their actions and imposing penalties.
Penultimately, the primary assumption and purpose behind the argument seems to be based and reflects on producer's lack of confidence in his recruitment skills. While some inexperienced individuals are slow to learn a person who is dedicated and inspired can contribute to a project just as well as a veteran. The primary assumption of money equalling success is also flawed as money that a project imbibes has never truly been an accurate indicator of success, multiple movies have put millions in the budget but failed to convert the investment into profit, so investing money on such trivial aspects seems to be wasteful in itself.
Comments
Essay evaluation 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: 10 15
No. of Words: 392 350
No. of Characters: 2008 1500
No. of Different Words: 214 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.45 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.122 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.946 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 156 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 127 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 94 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 59 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 39.2 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 13.474 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.6 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.369 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.645 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.057 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 499, Rule ID: CANT[1]
Message: Did you mean 'can't' or 'cannot'?
Suggestion: can't; cannot
...ently in less time. Since the precedent cant be used to justify wastefulness in a co...
^^^^
Line 3, column 222, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'films'' or 'film's'?
Suggestion: films'; film's
...hat they will become a hindrance in the films production and cause delays recurrently...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, if, may, regarding, second, so, well, while, as to, in addition, as well as, it is true
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 19.6327345309 81% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 12.9520958084 62% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 13.6137724551 73% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 15.0 28.8173652695 52% => OK
Preposition: 58.0 55.5748502994 104% => OK
Nominalization: 23.0 16.3942115768 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2032.0 2260.96107784 90% => OK
No of words: 392.0 441.139720559 89% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.18367346939 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.44960558625 4.56307096286 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.01123080456 2.78398813304 108% => OK
Unique words: 218.0 204.123752495 107% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.55612244898 0.468620217663 119% => OK
syllable_count: 641.7 705.55239521 91% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 0.0 4.96107784431 0% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.70958083832 221% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 10.0 19.7664670659 51% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 39.0 22.8473053892 171% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 76.6621810282 57.8364921388 133% => OK
Chars per sentence: 203.2 119.503703932 170% => OK
Words per sentence: 39.2 23.324526521 168% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.8 5.70786347227 172% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 6.88822355289 44% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.67664670659 21% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.130610647227 0.218282227539 60% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0502142359404 0.0743258471296 68% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0414775785287 0.0701772020484 59% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0807941436839 0.128457276422 63% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0503953595503 0.0628817314937 80% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 22.6 14.3799401198 157% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 31.89 48.3550499002 66% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 18.5 12.197005988 152% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.36 12.5979740519 106% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.2 8.32208582834 123% => OK
difficult_words: 115.0 98.500998004 117% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 12.3882235529 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 17.6 11.1389221557 158% => 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.