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 argument was proposed by a movie producer stating that for the movie "Working Title" the funding must be increased by 10% in order to produce a quality product. If such care was not taken, the movie would be assured to become a failure according to the producer. However, there are a number of flaws in the argument stated by the author and require introspection.
Firstly, there was a claim that the a first-time director is working in the project and he is ineligible to shoot the scenes swiftly. But this cannot be true because there are many directors in the industry who succeeded in completing the movie irrespective of their experience. Experience of a person cannot be linked with the success of a particular project. As the result of the given movie is said to be dependent on the unstated capability of the director, the argument is flawed.
Secondly, the claim that by hiring inexperienced people, there was saving in money does not have any supporting reasons. In addition to that, more money is to be paid to the actors and the crew. But the statistics of the amount of money saved with respect to the inexperienced director as well as the hike needed to be provided for the actors and crew was not mentioned. Had the author provided sufficient supporting statistics to his mentioned claim that there was a decrease of money to the callow directors and a wax in the remuneration to the crew, his statement would have been a cogent one.
Thirdly, there was a claim that the director will be shooting the same scene multiple times as he is inexperienced. However, the experience of a person cannot be linked to the claim mentioned. The crew might not have been performing well although the director gave lucid instructions. Just because there was a drawback in the time taken to shoot a scene and the director was not experienced, it is not right to say that there was a delay only because of him. Even if yes, supporting statements must be provided. Such claims were not at all mentioned by the author in his argument which weakens his idea.
To conclude, whenever there was a delay in the time to shoot, rise in the number of takes for a particular scene, rise in the expenditures of making the movie the producer claims that it was only due to the lack of experience of the director. This might or might not be true because there are no supporting claims to buttress his argument. The author must have provided compelling reasons behind the cause for the rise of budget and time as well as the role of crew in making the scenes in order to make his argument a cogent one.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-11-10 | AAAA2222 | 85 | view |
| 2019-11-04 | Roshan Dhakal | 37 | view |
| 2019-09-25 | TEJAS PATIL | 51 | view |
| 2019-09-18 | himanshupk | 29 | view |
| 2019-07-20 | kaziass | 86 | view |
- Summarize the points made in the lecture you just heard, explaining how they cast doubt on points made in the reading.In 1939, David O Selznick produced a film of Margaret Mitchell’s Pulitzer Prize winning novel, Gone with the Wind. The movie proved to 3
- 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 previou 58
- The best way to teach—whether as an educator, employer, or parent—is to praise positive actions and ignore negative ones. Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim. In developing and supporting your 69
- Professors are normally found in university classrooms, offices, and libraries doing research and lecturing to their students. More and more, however, they also appear as guests on television news programs, giving expert commentary on the latest events in 80
- Technology, while apparently aimed to simplify our lives, only makes our lives more complicated.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In dev 40
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... the author and require introspection. Firstly, there was a claim that the a fi...
^^^
Line 3, column 33, Rule ID: DT_DT[1]
Message: Maybe you need to remove one determiner so that only 'the' or 'a' is left.
Suggestion: the; a
...on. Firstly, there was a claim that the a first-time director is working in the p...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, firstly, however, if, second, secondly, so, third, thirdly, well, in addition, as well as, with respect to
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 36.0 19.6327345309 183% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.9520958084 93% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 13.6137724551 73% => OK
Pronoun: 22.0 28.8173652695 76% => OK
Preposition: 62.0 55.5748502994 112% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 16.3942115768 85% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2151.0 2260.96107784 95% => OK
No of words: 462.0 441.139720559 105% => OK
Chars per words: 4.65584415584 5.12650576532 91% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.63618218583 4.56307096286 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.71796666939 2.78398813304 98% => OK
Unique words: 187.0 204.123752495 92% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.404761904762 0.468620217663 86% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 688.5 705.55239521 98% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.471057884232 0% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 19.7664670659 101% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 22.8473053892 101% => OK
Sentence length SD: 51.041747619 57.8364921388 88% => OK
Chars per sentence: 107.55 119.503703932 90% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.1 23.324526521 99% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.9 5.70786347227 103% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.88822355289 131% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.67664670659 64% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.196386195135 0.218282227539 90% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0651158565004 0.0743258471296 88% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.101808224637 0.0701772020484 145% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.136624799282 0.128457276422 106% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.102485422324 0.0628817314937 163% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.1 14.3799401198 84% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 56.59 48.3550499002 117% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.197005988 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.04 12.5979740519 80% => Coleman_liau_index is low.
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.02 8.32208582834 96% => OK
difficult_words: 95.0 98.500998004 96% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 12.3882235529 85% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.1389221557 101% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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: 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.