The memo advocates for increasing funding for the movie "Working title" by 10% owing to extra charges for actors and other crews due to inefficiency of director and producers. However, this argument is based on multiple assumptions and these assumptions if not warranted will either cause no need of extra money to make movie or render the movie a box office catastrophe.
First and foremost, the author assumes that inexperienced director and assistant producers are wasteful to time. Yes, experienced directors and producers are better than inexperienced ones in most of the cases but this is not always the case. We have seen several movies and series such as "Gangs of Wasseypur", "Panchayat" directed by first time directors being not only better performing at the opening hours, but also having deep impression on the hearts of public even today. Further, the author is has not considered watching shampoo advertisement (previous work of the same director) by himself and analyze whether the advertisement was made taking too much time or not, he jumped on hasty conclusion that advertising business is wasteful and the director must have wasted a lot of scenes during shooting. If these assumptions prove unwaranted and director in fact take less time shooting the movie, there won't be any need of increasing budget for it.
Secondly, the author has considered saving money from one aspect of movie to be used for another aspect. However, This idea does not seem to be valid. We have seen several movies with great actors and actress with poor storyline, direction or cast being great failure. 'Lal Singh Chadda', which was adapted version of 'Forrest gump' was a blockbuster disaster due to poor storyline in spite of having great actors and actress. We have seen similar fate of hindi movie 'Aadipurush", which was adapted version of Hindu epic ramayana. The failure was attributed mostly to poor VFX in case of Aadipurush. As we know, balanced investments on various aspects has made movies like 'Dangal' and 'Bahubali' to be super hit on box office.
Thirdly, mention of extra hours to be used by actors does not seem legit. Since the actors will be paid on contract, the increased time period invested by actors does not necessarily mean increased charge. However, the author has assumed that these people are paid extra if the director proves to be wasteful. This assumption, if proven unwarranted will cause no need to increase budget for the movie.
Thus, the abovementioned factors in the memo should be further analyzed and studied in order to make assumptions such as "the budget for the movie will increase by 10%" or "the movie will still be hit with inexperienced director and producers in expense of budget on the actors and other crew member". Failure of these assumptions will prove assumption truthless. Proper analysis of situaltion helps make memo stand in the ground of reality much better than it stands now.
- Some people believe that traveling to and living in numerous places increases one s ability to relate and connect to other people Others believe that this ability is better cultivated by living in one place and developing a deep understanding of that comm 66
- Manned space flight is costly and dangerous Moreover the recent success of a series of unmanned space probes and satellites has demonstrated that a great deal of useful information can be gathered without the costs and risks associated with sending men an 58
- Men and women because of their inherent physical differences are not equally suited for many tasks Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim In developing and supporting your position be sure to address 66
- The following appeared in a memo from the new vice president of Sartorian a company that manufactures men s clothing Five years ago at a time when we had difficulties in obtaining reliable supplies of high quality wool fabric we discontinued production of 78
- Men and women because of their inherent physical differences are not equally suited for many tasks Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim In developing and supporting your position be sure to address 50
e-rater score 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: 21 15
No. of Words: 488 350
No. of Characters: 2386 1500
No. of Different Words: 234 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.7 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.889 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.58 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 169 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 117 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 80 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 50 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 23.238 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 11.972 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.571 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.292 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.514 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.13 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, still, third, thirdly, thus, in fact, such as, in spite of
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 23.0 19.6327345309 117% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.9520958084 85% => OK
Conjunction : 22.0 11.1786427146 197% => OK
Relative clauses : 5.0 13.6137724551 37% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 19.0 28.8173652695 66% => OK
Preposition: 60.0 55.5748502994 108% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 16.3942115768 49% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2499.0 2260.96107784 111% => OK
No of words: 487.0 441.139720559 110% => OK
Chars per words: 5.13141683778 5.12650576532 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.69766713281 4.56307096286 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.89003121806 2.78398813304 104% => OK
Unique words: 247.0 204.123752495 121% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.507186858316 0.468620217663 108% => OK
syllable_count: 785.7 705.55239521 111% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => 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: 21.0 19.7664670659 106% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 22.8473053892 101% => OK
Sentence length SD: 75.9151274514 57.8364921388 131% => OK
Chars per sentence: 119.0 119.503703932 100% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.1904761905 23.324526521 99% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.52380952381 5.70786347227 97% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.67664670659 150% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.23384110267 0.218282227539 107% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0657254869315 0.0743258471296 88% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0622150411634 0.0701772020484 89% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.134907924343 0.128457276422 105% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0535219541062 0.0628817314937 85% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.3 14.3799401198 99% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 48.13 48.3550499002 100% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.197005988 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.77 12.5979740519 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.6 8.32208582834 103% => OK
difficult_words: 118.0 98.500998004 120% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 12.3882235529 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.1389221557 101% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => 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.