Finally, the producer makes the claim that hiring inexperienced assistant producers and directors will save them money, only to incur increased expenses in having to pay for extra time spend on set waiting for those same actors and directions. Who is to say that a collective group of assistants on the set would put worth any less effort than those who are more experienced in the tasks? Just because they are inexperienced, it does not make them any less likely to get the job done quickly and efficaciously. Furthermore, if they were to get their tasks done quickly, it would actually decrease expenses, and the production company would benefit from paying less in salaries for inexperienced assistants.  Again, these claims made by the producer are unsupported and lack any evidence to take them convincing. 
In summation, we see that this argument is based on the conclusion that increasing the budget funding for the movie will make it a quality product. The conclusion has several flaws and is based on unproven assumptions made by the producer, chief among them being that increasing funds equals better quality, past experiences translates to the director being wasteful like others, and inexperienced assistants and producers leads to increased expenses. Many of the claims are subjective, lack any empirical data, and thus, we cannot take the direction’s conclusion at face value. 
