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 stated here a seriously flawed. It makes alot of claims which are baseless. There are assumptions taken for granted which cannot hold true without certain facts being mentioned to support them.
The author assumes that since we are working with a first time director who's prior experience with shooting is only that of shampoo commercials, the director will not be efficient. Just because he has been in the add sector, it does not mean that he isnt capable in the film sector. Newcomers have fresh ideas that have never been explored before. For example, very often even in the case of students in school- alotta of them are sometimes pushed into courses or filed of study which they are not interested in by their parents or for a lack of opportunity. When such people are eventually brought to a field of their choice, they shine. There are others who are multi-talented and prosper in various fields. The same could apply in this case.
The second failure in this argument is that increasing funding will ensure a quality product. The quality of the movie will not improve unless there is proper brain storming, people with ideas or experience, and prerelease screening..
Time being wasted on one scene again and again is also mentioned. This cannot be considered a waste of time. Every scene has to be repeated until the scene is perfect. Just rushing through to finish the scenes will produce a poor quality film. What the producer can do is keep deadlines and increase the work hours per day or incentives to meet the deadlines.
Another flaw -hiring relatively inexperienced assistant producers and directors. It is not mentioned whether there is atleast one experienced head for these producers and directors to work under. If there is someone knowledgable enough to command and guide them the money saved wil not necessarily 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.
One more point to be noted is that the film undustry is massive and very much sought after. Movies form a part and parcel of the common mans daily entertainment. When a movie rate at the top of the charts or turns out to be a blockbuster, the producers are given big awards and are recognised. The favourable reviews causes viewers to throng the theatres, sale of the movie through CDs, internet downloads etc soar and huge sums of money pour in. Movie channels on TV will also broadcast the film if it is a universal favourite. So if the movie is really worth it and it has quality, extra money will definitley come in and the realease will not be a failure. Saving money through hiring cheaper staff is not the only way to get this extra money as claimed by the author. A producer never judges if a movie is a failure or a succes from the revenue it generates. They do so rather from its ratings by the public and the viewrship and censor board.
Due to all the above flaws, the argument is unwarranted and severely requires reconsideration and ammendment.
"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 stated here a seriously flawed. It makes alot of claims which are baseless. There are assumptions taken for granted which cannot hold true without certain facts being mentioned to support them.
The author assumes that since we are working with a first time director who's prior experience with shooting is only that of shampoo commercials, the director will not be efficient. Just because he has been in the add sector, it does not mean that he isnt capable in the film sector. Newcomers have fresh ideas that have never been explored before. For example, very often even in the case of students in school- alotta of them are sometimes pushed into courses or filed of study which they are not interested in by their parents or for a lack of opportunity. When such people are eventually brought to a field of their choice, they shine. There are others who are multi-talented and prosper in various fields. The same could apply in this case.
The second failure in this argument is that increasing funding will ensure a quality product. The quality of the movie will not improve unless there is proper brain storming, people with ideas or experience, and prerelease screening..
Time being wasted on one scene again and again is also mentioned. This cannot be considered a waste of time. Every scene has to be repeated until the scene is perfect. Just rushing through to finish the scenes will produce a poor quality film. What the producer can do is keep deadlines and increase the work hours per day or incentives to meet the deadlines.
Another flaw -hiring relatively inexperienced assistant producers and directors. It is not mentioned whether there is atleast one experienced head for these producers and directors to work under. If there is someone knowledgable enough to command and guide them the money saved wil not necessarily 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.
One more point to be noted is that the film undustry is massive and very much sought after. Movies form a part and parcel of the common mans daily entertainment. When a movie rate at the top of the charts or turns out to be a blockbuster, the producers are given big awards and are recognised. The favourable reviews causes viewers to throng the theatres, sale of the movie through CDs, internet downloads etc soar and huge sums of money pour in. Movie channels on TV will also broadcast the film if it is a universal favourite. So if the movie is really worth it and it has quality, extra money will definitley come in and the realease will not be a failure. Saving money through hiring cheaper staff is not the only way to get this extra money as claimed by the author. A producer never judges if a movie is a failure or a succes from the revenue it generates. They do so rather from its ratings by the public and the viewrship and censor board.
Due to all the above flaws, the argument is unwarranted and severely requires reconsideration and ammendment.