The author argues that there is need for an increase of 10% funding for the movie 'Working Title' to ensure quality. He cites several key factors in justifying this additional need, namely because of involvement of a first-time director, relatively inexperienced producers and assistant directors, who would spend more time in arranging things and this would lead to extra work hours for the unionized crew and actors resulting in an overall increase in expenditure. He further states that without this additional budget, the movie is assured to be a failure. However, the author inadvertently makes certain unwarranted assumptions which render his argument unpersuasive.
First, regarding the involvement of the first-time director, whose only previous experience is in shooting commercials for a shampoo company, he sounds presumptous in stating that the advertising business is notoriously wasteful and hence the director is likely to shoot take after take, without being concerned about the priority of the scenes. However, no substantial evidence is there which supports such a presumption. Even if it is assumed that the advertising industry is notoriously wasteful, it might so happen that the director, having learnt the nuances between short commercial shoots and long movies during his coursework, is well adept in prioritising scenes on the basis of the movie's storyline. Even, if the director is more inclined towards the practices of the advertising industry, it might also be that he is a very punctual person and strictly adheres to the shoot timelines. In either case the author's assumption does not hold water
Second, the author presumes that the relatively inexperienced assistants would take more time to arrange things. However, these inexperienced assistants might be young. They might turn out to be enthusiastic and active in their dealings than more experienced people. They might take on their duties ebulliently and much more efficiently through new approaches and tools. Hiring relatively inexperienced assistants does not necessarily mean that they are inefficient compared to more experienced folk. While experience necessarily brings wisdom in dealing with things, it also brings along with it with orthodoxities - experienced people are more inclined to take on the traditional approach than look for efficient and faster methods to bring about results.
Furthermore, the authors believes that the costs saved due to hiring of inexperienced assistants would be counteracted by the rising costs of unionized crew and actors who would have to spend more time on the set waiting for the assistants to arrange things. However, no comparison of the expenditures on the assistants, crew members or the actors as such is presented by the author to make such an argument. It might so happen that even though the actors and unionized crew has to do overtime, their contracts suggest a fixed amount per day and not on an hourly basis. Under such a scenario, there would not be any substantial increase in expenditures arising out of delays due to the inexperienced assistants. Moreover, how this extra money ensures the movie's success is not really apparent from the author's argument. A movie's success depends on a lot of parameters such as audience approval, box-office collection, a strong storyline among others. It might that the extra budget allows the movie to be successfully produced but it still might be a failure. Also, even if such funding compensates the additional costs, how does it ensure quality of the movie is not exactly clear from the memo.
In conclusion, it might be possible that the 10% increase in the funding for the movie 'Working Title' is an absolute necessity for a successful production. However, as it stands now, the author's argument stands unpersuasive at best and specious at worst. More evidence is needed to ascertain how the involvement of a first-time director, inexperienced assistants would inevitably lead to increase costs due to overtime work of unionized crew and actors.
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement In my country young people have a better life today than their parents enjoyed when they were young 90
- Marco Polo 73
- Educators should teach facts only after their students have studied the ideas trends and concepts that help explain those facts Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain your reason 66
- 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 78
- The following is taken from a memo from the advertising director of the Super Screen Movie Production Company According to a recent report from our marketing department during the past year fewer people attended Super Screen produced movies than in any ot 66
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.5 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 7 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 11 2
No. of Sentences: 25 15
No. of Words: 639 350
No. of Characters: 3338 1500
No. of Different Words: 285 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 5.028 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.224 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.929 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 252 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 195 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 145 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 96 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 25.56 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 12.264 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.68 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.298 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.298 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.096 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 692, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'movies'' or 'movie's'?
Suggestion: movies'; movie's
...prioritising scenes on the basis of the movies storyline. Even, if the director is mor...
^^^^^^
Line 2, column 915, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...the shoot timelines. In either case the authors assumption does not hold water Second,...
^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 755, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'movies'' or 'movie's'?
Suggestion: movies'; movie's
...eover, how this extra money ensures the movies success is not really apparent from the...
^^^^^^
Line 4, column 802, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...success is not really apparent from the authors argument. A movies success depends on a...
^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 822, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'movies'' or 'movie's'?
Suggestion: movies'; movie's
...y apparent from the authors argument. A movies success depends on a lot of parameters ...
^^^^^^
Line 5, column 187, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...duction. However, as it stands now, the authors argument stands unpersuasive at best an...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, furthermore, hence, however, if, look, moreover, really, regarding, second, so, still, thus, well, while, as to, in conclusion, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 28.0 19.6327345309 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 18.0 12.9520958084 139% => OK
Conjunction : 17.0 11.1786427146 152% => OK
Relative clauses : 17.0 13.6137724551 125% => OK
Pronoun: 40.0 28.8173652695 139% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 76.0 55.5748502994 137% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 16.3942115768 98% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3400.0 2260.96107784 150% => OK
No of words: 639.0 441.139720559 145% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.32081377152 5.12650576532 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 5.02776782673 4.56307096286 110% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.99541316015 2.78398813304 108% => OK
Unique words: 296.0 204.123752495 145% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.463223787167 0.468620217663 99% => OK
syllable_count: 1063.8 705.55239521 151% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 13.0 4.96107784431 262% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 25.0 19.7664670659 126% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 22.8473053892 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 78.3789359458 57.8364921388 136% => OK
Chars per sentence: 136.0 119.503703932 114% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.56 23.324526521 110% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.12 5.70786347227 107% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 5.25449101796 114% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 14.0 8.20758483034 171% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.67664670659 86% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.230704330655 0.218282227539 106% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0693419511093 0.0743258471296 93% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0889223727074 0.0701772020484 127% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.151248545637 0.128457276422 118% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0792094681597 0.0628817314937 126% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.4 14.3799401198 114% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 37.64 48.3550499002 78% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 12.197005988 116% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.87 12.5979740519 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.88 8.32208582834 107% => OK
difficult_words: 162.0 98.500998004 164% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.0 12.3882235529 121% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.1389221557 108% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 30 minutes.
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.