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, the movie producer asks for increasing funding for a new movie so that it can be a quality product. First of all, increasing funds does not assure a quality movie but keeping that aside even if we think that increased funding can result in a better movie the arguments given by the producer are rife with loopholes and assumptions which are completely invalid.
Considering the novice movie director, this producer assumes that because he has only worked for the commercials it is a surety that he will shoot many takes for one scene. Has this producer ever seen working style of this director earlier or has he worked with this director? This director might be different from other commercial shooting directors and it is plausible that he does not take many retakes for one particular scene. Without the mention of his previous experiences with this director, the producer just cannot generalize and make an assumption that there will be lot of retakes.
The producer argues that because of all these retakes time will be spent and undoubtedly they will have to spend extra amount for actors and crew members. This assumption is unconvincing as it is possible that the amount of time he is considering will be spent would not be actually spent. Moreover, if the actors and crew members have already signed a contract quoting their fee, they cannot increase it just because the time spent has increased. It is not mentioned in the memo whether these actors and crew members are paid on hourly basis or contractual basis. The information provided here is just not enough to come to this conclusion.
Lastly, the greatest fallacious assumption which has been made by the producer is that without extra funding this movie is assured to be a failure. Any movie does not solely depends on funding, there are several other factors which contribute in the success of a movie. There are many low budget movies like Masaan, The Paranormal Activity which performed exceptionally well and were huge success.
Although, increasing funding can improve many things like advertising and marketing of a movie but it definitely does not guarantee the success of a movie. The assumptions made by the producer fall apart and are not convincing enough to come to this conclusion.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 175, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[3]
Message: The verb 'does' requires base form of the verb: 'depend'
Suggestion: depend
...be a failure. Any movie does not solely depends on funding, there are several other fac...
^^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['actually', 'but', 'first', 'if', 'lastly', 'moreover', 'so', 'well', 'first of all']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.211165048544 0.25644967241 82% => OK
Verbs: 0.199029126214 0.15541462614 128% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0703883495146 0.0836205057962 84% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0776699029126 0.0520304965353 149% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0412621359223 0.0272364105082 151% => Less pronouns wanted. Try not to use 'you, I, they, he...' as the subject of a sentence
Prepositions: 0.123786407767 0.125424944231 99% => OK
Participles: 0.0631067961165 0.0416121511921 152% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.61356117968 2.79052419416 94% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0145631067961 0.026700313972 55% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.001811407834 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.111650485437 0.113004496875 99% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0291262135922 0.0255425247493 114% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.00970873786408 0.0127820249294 76% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2282.0 2731.13054187 84% => OK
No of words: 384.0 446.07635468 86% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.94270833333 6.12365571057 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.4267276788 4.57801047555 97% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.34375 0.378187486979 91% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.268229166667 0.287650121315 93% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.184895833333 0.208842608468 89% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.1171875 0.135150697306 87% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.61356117968 2.79052419416 94% => OK
Unique words: 184.0 207.018472906 89% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.479166666667 0.469332199767 102% => OK
Word variations: 51.0483160627 52.1807786196 98% => OK
How many sentences: 16.0 20.039408867 80% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 23.2022227129 103% => OK
Sentence length SD: 39.8620668681 57.7814097925 69% => OK
Chars per sentence: 142.625 141.986410481 100% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.0 23.2022227129 103% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.5625 0.724660767414 78% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 3.58251231527 28% => OK
Readability: 50.8229166667 51.9672348444 98% => OK
Elegance: 1.25190839695 1.8405768891 68% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.418418235593 0.441005458295 95% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.168949730747 0.135418324435 125% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0720686033764 0.0829849096947 87% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.599697362677 0.58762219726 102% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.102854231677 0.147661913831 70% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.181362733022 0.193483328276 94% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0910096509009 0.0970749176394 94% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.296891464745 0.42659136922 70% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0589799031055 0.0774707102158 76% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.288516542073 0.312017818177 92% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.072575349913 0.0698173142475 104% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.33743842365 72% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 6.87684729064 44% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.82512315271 145% => OK
Positive topic words: 4.0 6.46551724138 62% => OK
Negative topic words: 2.0 5.36822660099 37% => OK
Neutral topic words: 5.0 2.82389162562 177% => OK
Total topic words: 11.0 14.657635468 75% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 66.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4 Out of 6 -- The score is based on the average performance of 20,000 argument essays. This e-grader is not smart enough to check on arguments.
---------------------
Note: This is not the final score. 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.