The producers of the forthcoming movie 3003 will be most likely to max

If I were to guess, between 5 and 6. Of course, I'm no expert.

I am not an expert to your question but just sharing my response here. I hope this is helpful and in case anyone can comment on my response, I'll be grateful.

A recent article concluded that the producers of movie 3003 will be most likely to maximize their profits if they are willing to pay Robin Good several million dollars to star in it beccause Robin has in the past been paid a similar amount to work in several films that were very financially successful. This argument, however, is flawed, most notably because it fails to take into account that the movies in which Robin Good worked had a very successful co-star or a director with a huge fan following, Robin has not done any movie in the past several years and has aged significantly since his last movie or Robin Good's earlier films had success in a different country where 3003 is not planned to be released. Therefore, over the course of following four paragraphs, this essay will discuss that the argument is weak and provide several suggestions to strengthen the conclusion.

Most notably, the article assumes that the films in which Robin worked were financially successful because of him. This may not be the case however, as it is likely that the movies in which he worked had a very successful co-star or a director with a huge fan following. Thus, the author must delve more into the team that worked in those films and show that those movies were indeed successful because of him.

Another assumption that the author makes is that Robin will be able to replicate his performance in 3003. This may not be the case, as it could be that Robin has not done any movie in the past several years and has aged significantly since his last movie. Therefore, in order to strengthen the conclusion, the author must demonstrate that Robin's successful movies were released in the recent past and he has a decent chance of replicating his performance.

Still a third assumption that is made by the author is that Robin Good's previous sucessful films were targetted at the same audience as 3003. This may not be the case as it is possible that Robin Good's earlier films had success in a different country where 3003 is not planned to be released. Therefore, to strengthen the argument, the author must clarify that intended audience for 3003 and other Robin Good movies is same.

As discussed above, the article concludes that the producers of movie 3003 will be most likely to maximize their profits if they are willing to pay Robin Good several million dollars to star in it. This conclusion may not be true however, because it is possible that the movies in which Robin Good worked had a very successful co-star or a director with a huge fan following, Robin has not done any movie in the past several years and has aged significantly since his last movie or Robin Good's earlier films had success in a different country where 3003 is not planned to be released. Therefore, in order to strengthen the conclusion, the author must delve more into the team that worked in those films and show that those movies were indeed successful because of him, demonstrate that Robin's successful movies were released in the recent past and he has a decent chance of replicating his performance and clarify that intended audience for 3003 and other Robin Good movies is same.

Can someone please evaluate my response?

The argument claims that the Producers of forthcoming movie 3003 will most likely maximise their profits if the producers are willing to pay several million dollars to Robin Good. Though the argument is compelling at face value, its conclusion is entirely untenable because the entire argument is fraught with oversimplified, vague and unwarranted claims.

To begin with, the argument is weakened because of ‘mistaken cause and effect’ logical fallacy. The attribution of several films’ financial success in the past to solely Robin Good’s work and involvement is unjustified. This attribution is a stretch because there can be several other key factors that cause the financial success of a particular film. For example, experienced director along with a strong script has historically proven to be a good leading indicator of film’s success. The given argument fails to mention effect of other factors in the making of film. The argument could be improved if sufficient evidence is provided to disprove the positive effect of any factor, excluding Robin’s involvement, on the film’s success.

Second, the argument unfairly assumes that past success will repeat in future. While this is a tempting assumption, its truth is by no means obvious. For instance, Robin could have been involved in several films that didn't become a commercial success irrespective of the fact that Robin was handsomely for doing those films. Moreover, the demand for movies or Robin’s work can be drastically different in future than what the demand was in past. To make a justifiable case for this argument, its important to showcase that demand for Robin’s work has not decreased and Robin is still a popular actor.

Third, there are several important questions that need to be answered. For example, are there any other ways because of which the movie 3003 can be a commercial success? Does Robin excel in the genre of movie 3003? Are there any other actors that are more suited for working in 3003 and are happy with lower salary? Without convincing answers to these questions, one is left with the impression that the claim is more of a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence.

In conclusion, because the argument makes several unwarranted assumptions, it fails to make a convincing case that by paying Robin several million dollars, producers can expect the movie to be financial success.

Hi, please rate my essay.

The argument presented above is a badly reasoned argument and suffers from the fallacy of faulty analogy. The author in the present argument claims that the producers of the upcoming movie '3003' should pay 'Robin Good', an amount higher than the industry standards, to star in it and thereby maximising the prospet of profits for the same. The author basis of the author's conclusion are past financial success of Robin Good's movies. I have strong reservations against the the faulty line of reasoning used by the author which I shall ellucidate in the following paragraphs.

First and foremost, the author bases his conclusion on past success trend followed by several movies in which the actor Robin Good starred. The author is therefore, jumping to conclusion in this instance without relevant and substantial evidence or proof. The success of several films does not necessarily mean the sucess of every film that the same actor stars in. In the past, we have observed that an actor, as successful he/she may be, has starred in a fair share of commercially successful as well as unsuccessful films.

Moreover, the author completely disregards merits of the films. The fate of every film cannot be pre-determined solely on the basis of the actors acting in the film. The audience does not only get attracted by the leading actors but also pays attention to the story line, the editing and the over all direction of the film.

In addition to the above, the author further wrongly assumes that the only way to assured success is to pay Robin Good an amount higher than the industry standards for other actors as he completely negates the possibility that Robin Good may appreciate the script and wish to star in the film even without being paid huge amount of money.

Therefore, I believe that the argument posed by the author lacks credence and would have been a sounder argument if the author had placed an equal importance on the other aspects of film making.

I would highly appreciate it if someone could help me evaluate the essay.

The argument asserts that paying Robin Good several million dollars to star in a film will lead to the success of the film. This conclusion is based on the success of other films in which Robin stared and charged a similar amount. Though the argument makes a case for star power in the success of films, it ignores certain other key elements that also lead to the success of the film. Hence, the argument is undeveloped and rather unconvincing in the following ways:

First of all, actors are generally good at one particular genre of films. The argument fails to consider where the genre of movie 3003 is same as the genre of other successful films that Robin has stared in. The argument also fails to consider the size of Robin's fanbase. Is the movie likely to be successful based only on Robin as his fanbase is so large that no other factor matters? Moreover, is it certain that Robin will agree to star in the movie for just money or does he care about liking the storyline as well? Without the answer to these questions, it is hard to evaluate whether Robin alone will be able to guarantee the success of the film as he may not even want to be a part of the movie.

Secondly, Is it unlikely for the movie to be successful if Robin does not star in it? Are there no other actors who have substantial acting skills to star in the movie? Is Robin required to star as the lead role or a small appearance by him will also make the movie successful? Is it likely that the rest of the cast will not feel motivated to act in the movies as they are not being treated equally to Robin? These factors will determine whether there is a good replacement for Robin available, and how the other cast and crew member will react to Robin. If the other members are not happy then no matter how good Robin is, they will not give their best work. 

Thirdly, have all the movies that Robin stared in been successful? This will determine the rate of success of Robin, and inform whether Robin is a skilled actor or not. If only some of his movies have been successful, then 3003 might not be successful. It is possible that Robin started asking several million dollars after a few successful films when in the past hundreds of his films were unsuccessful. 

Lastly, paying Robin thousands of dollars will raise the cost of making the movie. Hence, it is important to evaluate the current status of the economy as that will determine how much revenue a film is likely to generate. If the economy is not doing well, fewer people are likely to go watch a movie no matter how famous Robin is. In that case, paying Robin will not increase the profit of the movie.

In conclusion, through Robin might be a skilled actor, it is very hard to determine whether hiring him and paying him a large amount of money will be enough to make the movie successful. The success of the movie is likely to depend on other actors in the movie, the storyline, the director, and the crew. Robin might add the cherry on the cake unless he is the only actor with good enough acting skills to be able to pull through the roll of the lead actor. 

Could someone have a look at the same for the given topic?

The argument states that the producers of the forthcoming film 3003 will be most likely to maximize their profits if they are willing to pay Robin Good several million dollars to star in the film. The amount paid to him will be significantly higher than any of his co-star. Stated in this way, the argument fails to address several factors, on the basis of which it can be evaluated. The argument is based on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hence, the argument is weak, unconvincing and has several flaws.

Firstly, the argument assumes that Robin Good's co-stars will have no issues with them being paid significantly lower than Robin Good for the same project. This statement is a strecth and has no substantial support. For instance, previously, in the making of the commercially successfull web series "FRIENDS" two main stars among six were paid significantly more than the other four cast members. This led to an internal issue on the sets, with the other four actors demanding similar pay to continue the work. This created unnecessary delays and the overall costs of the project rose exponentially. The author should account such sceanorios before making a claim that Robin Good should be paid significantly more than others. Also, the arugment would be clearer if it exhibited how paying Robin Good this steep amount will automatically translate into higher profits.

Secondly, the argument claims that because Robin Good has been paid several million dollars to work in films that were very finacially succesfull and the same trend should continue. The argument provides no correlation between the amount of money paid previously to Robin Good and the number of his succesfull films. This could merely be a coincidence or some other factor could have contributed to the commercial success of his movies. Hence there is a lack of quantative analysis on the part of the author to suggest this. The argument will be more concinving if the author would have justified how making such a finacial investment on one actor makes sense.

Finally, the big question that arises from the argument is that whether the role that will be played by Robin Good in the film justifies the sum proposed to be paid to him. Without convincing answers to such questions, the argument leaves an impression of wishful thinking rather than sustantial evidence. The argument does not have a leg to stand on.

The conclusion is therefore unconvincing for the above mentioned reasons. The passage would be strengthened if the author had suggested that the fan base that Robin Good occupies and they automatically converting as sure viewers of the movie would make financial sense. Hence, to evaluate the merits of this situation, all the contributing factors should have been evaluated. The argument is weak and unconvincing at best.

Dont use First, Secondly, Thirdly, etc. Just say "First" Second or Third or Another....


Using an unofficial Tool GMAT AWA, here is what i have:



Please do not forget to use the Chineseburnt AWA Template!
https://gmatclub.com/forum/how-to-get-6 ... 64327.html

P.S. Do not use the words firstly and secondly.... use First or Second or Another....

Hi all

Please review my AWA. Need very genuine suggestions.
===================================================================================
The following appeared as part of a column in a popular entertainment magazine:

“The producers of the forthcoming movie 3003 will be most likely to maximize their profits if they are willing to pay Robin Good several million dollars to star in it—even though that amount is far more than any other person involved with the movie will make. After all, Robin has in the past been paid a similar amount to work in several films that were very financially successful.”

Response:

According to the argument , the forthcoming movie 3003 will only be able to maximize profits if the producers pay Robin Good several million dollars to star in it , knowing that the amount is far more than any other person involved with the movie will make. It also states that this has been a trend with robin in the past too as to whenever he has been paid a similar amount to work in any films the film has been successful., if not all several of them.

Based on the argument and the facts stated it is not possible to conclude that paying Robin a huge amount will guarantee and financial success.

Firstly , we have been not presented with th right data as to what roles Robin has played in those past commercial successes. Are they similar to the one being offered. We would also need to analyze the story line of those movies compared to the one being discussed. It might be possible that the roles provided in those movies would have been same and due to repeated performance of a similar kind of role Robin would have expertise in them. it's incorrect to blindly follow a trend and base your decisions on that and expect the same result.

Secondly we are not aware as to how much effort robin would have put in for those roles. Those roles might have been something which robin would have done before too and the current film's role might be something completely new . Robin might not be able to perform up to a similar level if he is not well versed or comfortable with the new role. It might completely bring down the effort of other artists and the film overall. The only movies that have been discussed are his hit movies . what about the poor or average movies. We need to check them too to analyze his performance on a whole.

Lastly , the details about crew members are also not discussed in the argument. A film is not just about a artist and his performance. It's made up out of everyone's effort, which includes director, cinematographer ,editor, etc. Was the same crew used in all the movies which were a financial blockbuster? If yes is the same crew being used in this movie too? If no is the crew being used has ever worked before with robin good before? We have a lot of parameters which needs to thoroughly analyzed as to predict something this big.

In conclusion I feel there are a lot of unanswered questions or topics which needs to be thoroughly discussed or researched before coming to any conclusion. The recipe to every good dish is not same similarly the recipe to every financial hit movie is not same. Even if you get the same set of ingredients for a blockbuster dish you can't guarantee it to be a replica of the dish.

============================================================================

Good luck

Dear Sajjad,
Could you please let me know how or whether we can access this Essay grader?

Thanks in advance

Posted from my mobile device

It is available online you can search it on google.

The following appeared as part of a column in a popular entertainment magazine:

“The producers of the forthcoming movie 3003 will be most likely to maximize their profits if they are willing to pay Robin Good several million dollars to star in it—even though that amount is far more than any other person involved with the movie will make. After all, Robin has in the past been paid a similar amount to work in several films that were very financially successful.”

Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. In your discussion be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counter examples might weaken the conclusion. You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.

ESSAY

The argument claims that the producers of the movie 3003 will be most likely to maximize their profits if they are willing to pay Mr. Robin several million dollars to star in it. Also, this amount is far more than any other person involved with the movie will make. The argument cites as premise, that Mr. Robin has in the past been paid a similar amount to work in several films that were very financially successful. Stated this way the argument fails to mention several key factors on the basis of which it could be evaluated. The conclusion relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hence the argument is unconvincing and has several flaws.

First, the argument readily assumes that casting mega stars is the only way the producers of this movie will be able to maximize their profits. This statement is a stretch and not substantiated in any way. There are numerous examples of movies wherein mega stars have been cast and the movie has failed to turn up good profits; such as : The Fast and Furious movie. Clearly, the author fails to clarify how this move will help maximize profits; Additionally, he cites that Mr. Robin must be paid several million dollars, hinting at high costs only. The argument would have been much clearer if it gave examples of how casting a mega star such as Mr. Robin will help the profits this movie will make.

Second, the argument claims that no other star of the movie will be making as much money as Mr. Robin will be making. Consequently, this claim make projections towards an ill-satiated cast in terms of the money they will be making. We can only assume that the performance of the other members of the movie may not be up to the mark, or that the casting team may not able to cast good members for the other roles. If the argument had provided evidence that the members best for other roles in the movie can be hired for the money allocated then the argument would have been much more convincing.

Finally, the author says that Mr. Robin has been paid a similar amount to work in several films that were very financially successful. For this statement again it is not clear whether Mr. Robin who had been paid a similar amount in the previous movies, which turned out successful, will be willing to work for a similar price, or will be interested to work for this movie (considering the script). Without convincing answers to these questions, one is left with the impression that the claim is more of a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence.

In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts such as : Why does this movie needs Mr. Robin as a cast to perform well financially, Whether Mr. Robin will agree to work for a price he charged previously, Whether Mr. Robin will be interested in the script of the movie. In order to assess the merits of a certain situation, it is essential to have full knowledge of all contributing factors. Without this information the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.

Good luck

Please review my essay and give suggestions for further improvement.
Prompt:
“The producers of the forthcoming movie 3003 will be most likely to maximize their profits if they are willing to pay Robin Good several million dollars to star in it—even though that amount is far more than any other person involved with the movie will make. After all, Robin has in the past been paid a similar amount to work in several films that were very financially successful.”

Essay:
The above argument is flawed for numerous reasons. The author has concluded that the movie 3003 will be successful if Robin Good stars in it because he was the cast member of several other successful movies. This assumption is unsubstantiated, as no clear evidence in support of this assumption is provided by the author.

Firstly, stating that casting Robin Good by paying him several million dollar will result in the the maximized profit is vague as the author has misinterpreted the cause and effect of a movies's success. The success of the several other movies in which Robin Good acted might not be solely because of him. There are various other factors on which a movie's success or failure depends. These factors include the storyline of the movie, targeted audience, directors, and other cast members of the movie.

Moreover, Robin Good's fees exceeds the budget of the movie 3003, as all the other member's fees are far less than his and the author was unable to establish a guarantee for the profit maximization through casting him as he used " most likely" in the statement which is a very vague term to use of substantiating any information.

Furthermore, a movie's profits depends on various elements which the author has failed to mention in his argument. These elements includes a movie's budget, time of the year when it is being released, the parental guidance rating, reviews by the film critiques, general public reviews after movie's release, and the reputation of the directors, producers, and the cast members of the movie,

Lastly, the author could have strengthened the argument by providing the relevant statistical figures related to the movie's budget, Robin Good's fees, and the revenue and the budget of the other films in which Robin Good was a member of the cast. In addition to this, author could also have included the information related to the other factors which are mentioned in the above paragraphs in order to make this argument convincing.

In conclusion, the author of the argument failed to make a convincing case that by casting Roobin Good, the movie 3003 will maximize its profits.

On which prompt this essay is based?

could you please provide the link from where you got the argument evaluated?

Hello everyone! Would be grateful if you could rate my attempt!
Answer
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The argument, which appears as a part of a column in a popular entertainment magazine, claims that if the producers pay Robin Good several million dollars, their forthcoming movie ,3003,will be able to maximize profits. Stated argument is inconclusive without data supporting its hypothesis. It tends to manipulate facts to present a distorted view of reality and is a leap of faith, reasoning without clear outcomes. Thus, the argument could be improved it supported data on which its core assumptions depend upon.

First the argument assumes that since the films that Robin Good has worked in earlier had been financially successful so will be 3003 if it casts Robin Good. This assumption is incorrect because it doesn not consider the fact that the past cannot predict the future of a film being produced under different factors like directors, producers, supporting actors, budget of production and most importantly the plot of the film. For example Dilwale Dulhania Le Jaayenge, Kuchh Kuchh Hota Hai and Kabhi Khushi Kabhi Gam were financially successful films starring the actor Shahrukh Khan but the film Don did not have a similar fate.Thus the argument would be more convincing if it explicitly states the budget of production, expected revenue, similarity of storylines, and hype among audience of the film 3003, while making its claim

Secondly the argument claims that if the producers pay Robin Good several million dollars to star in their film even though the amount is far more than that paid to any other person involved, the film's profits will be maximized. This again is weak and unsupported since the argument does not give sufficient reasoning as to why thew actor should be paid so much money.So unless the argument provides a clear picture of the actors acting history, efficiency, dilligence on solo level not on the basis of past performance starring a group of actors it is unwise to deem that the film will make profits even after spending so much money on production itself. Thus the argument should provide more evidence on this subject to make its claim more convincing.

Finally the argument does not answer such questions as: What is the budget of the film? What is the expected profit? Who are the supporting cast? How well written is the plot? Without an answer to these questions, one is left with an impression that the claim is more of a wishful thinking than a substantiative evidence.

In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above reasoning and it is therefore inconclusive. It would be considerably strenghtened if it provided information about the reason for the high amount of salary for Robin Good. In order to assess the merit of a decision it very important to know the contributing factors. In this particular case the plot, expected profits, budget of film, supporting cast and history of success of producers. Without this information the argument is unsubstantiated and open to debate.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------