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 to the head of the movie studio, the movie producer states that the funding to the movie 'Working Title' should be increased by 10%, in order to ensure the successful production of the movie. The movie producer has come to this conclusion based on the assumption that the existing inexperienced directors and assistants will dilate the movie set and the actors and crew will demand more money for this extra time spent on the set and if they are not paid on time, the actors will not be cooperative and movie is headed towards failure. However, before this recommendation can be properly evaluated, the following three assumptions made by the producer for the above claim, has to be warranted with further evidence.
Firstly, the producer has assumed that the advertisement business is notoriously wasteful, and the director with experience in shampoo advertisement will employ the same technique used in shooting advertisements to the shooting of movie. Perhaps, in the field of shampoo advertisement the shots had to be quick and meaningful, specially in the parts where hair is wet. Maybe, advertisements have more content to be displayed in short screen time, hence the shots have to be very detailed and crisp and required directors full attention and satisfaction from every single shot for it to be passed, thus it required more time. The same principle cannot be applied to a movie where the screen time is patently higher. The director might not require take after take to get a good shot for the movie. If either of these above scenarios has merit, then conclusion drawn in the original argument that director will dilate by demanding take after take is significantly weakened.
Secondly, producer has assumed that inexperience is equal to the incapacity of the assistant producers and directors. Inexperience does not guarantee that the person will be bungling at their job, in fact they might be more meticulous and efficient compared to an experienced person at the job because of the invigorated enthusiasm for the new task at hand. Perhaps, these inexperienced assistants have a clever way of arranging the set quicker. Maybe, they will bring in new perspective and ideas which might save the budget and provide a huge return on investment. If the above is true, then the argument that assistants will cause the need to increase in budget, does not hold water.
Thirdly, producer has assumed that the actors and unionized crew will perform their duties with pedantically. Perhaps, the actors hired are inefficient at their job and their skills does not satisfy the directors needs which might be the reason for director demanding take after take. The director aiming for perfect shot and not compromising on quality will ensure a good quality product but the actors being inept or miscommunication between the actor and director might thwart the quality of the movie. Thus, the capacity of the actors also needs to be considered before improving the budget to pay them more, else it's just waste of resources.
In conclusion,. the argument as it stands now is considerably flawed due its reliance on several unwarranted assumptions. If the author is able to answer the three assumptions above and offer more evidence (perhaps in the form of a systematic research study), then it will be possible to fully evaluate the viability of the proposed recommendation to improve the budget for movie in order to ensure its success.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 219, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ling at their job, in fact they might be more meticulous and efficient compared t...
^^
Line 9, column 14, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma
Suggestion: , .
...st waste of resources. In conclusion,. the argument as it stands now is consid...
^^
Line 9, column 17, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: The
...waste of resources. In conclusion,. the argument as it stands now is considerab...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, hence, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, then, third, thirdly, thus, as to, in conclusion, in fact, in short
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 26.0 19.5258426966 133% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 20.0 12.4196629213 161% => OK
Conjunction : 21.0 14.8657303371 141% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 11.3162921348 106% => OK
Pronoun: 28.0 33.0505617978 85% => OK
Preposition: 75.0 58.6224719101 128% => OK
Nominalization: 20.0 12.9106741573 155% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2887.0 2235.4752809 129% => OK
No of words: 572.0 442.535393258 129% => OK
Chars per words: 5.0472027972 5.05705443957 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.89045207381 4.55969084622 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.82250520808 2.79657885939 101% => OK
Unique words: 260.0 215.323595506 121% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.454545454545 0.4932671777 92% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 912.6 704.065955056 130% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 6.24550561798 32% => OK
Article: 11.0 4.99550561798 220% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 4.0 3.10617977528 129% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.77640449438 56% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.38483146067 137% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 20.2370786517 99% => OK
Sentence length: 28.0 23.0359550562 122% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 77.6683454316 60.3974514979 129% => OK
Chars per sentence: 144.35 118.986275619 121% => OK
Words per sentence: 28.6 23.4991977007 122% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.05 5.21951772744 135% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 7.80617977528 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 10.2758426966 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 5.13820224719 97% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.83258426966 124% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.226632320657 0.243740707755 93% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0698004851822 0.0831039109588 84% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.107470509216 0.0758088955206 142% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.133446668975 0.150359130593 89% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.115349539711 0.0667264976115 173% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.7 14.1392134831 118% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 43.06 48.8420337079 88% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 12.1743820225 117% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.6 12.1639044944 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.42 8.38706741573 100% => OK
difficult_words: 123.0 100.480337079 122% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 27.0 11.8971910112 227% => Linsear_write_formula is high.
gunning_fog: 13.2 11.2143820225 118% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.7820224719 110% => 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.