|
|
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.
Customized
for You
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
28 Jun 2020, 08:33
Kudos
Bookmarks
Looking for any advice or critique of my essay! Thank you!
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.
---
The argument that paying Robin Good several million dollars to star in the the movie will lead to maximized profits is unsupported and unreasonable. This conclusion incorrectly utilizes causality, falsely parallels profit with financial success, uses faulty comparisons, and does not consider other factors that could contribute to the film's financial success.
For starters, this argument draws a very steep conclusion that paying more for the movie's star will lead to greater financial success. This claim is too far fetched to be innately supported by the sparse information provided. This causality is too extreme as there can be many other factors that may contribute or detract from a movie being financially successful and yielding the maximum profit. For example, while the movie may have an incredible star that they are paying a lot of money for, the plot and theme of the movie could be unpopular among viewers. Therefore, despite how much they are paying the star actor, the movie may not maximize profits. The same would go for other factors contributing to the success of the movie such as the other leading actors and actresses as well as the set up, props, and costumes that are used. Additionally, there is no evidence that paying Robin Good more money will cause him to perform better such that higher earnings can be expected.
Another key issue with the argument is that it falsely uses the success of Robin Good's previous films as evidence that this film will also be profitable. This is not a fair comparison to make, especially without any further details. For example, if Robin Good has had many successful romantic comedy films, but this film is an action movie, Robin Good may not be as well suited for this. Thus, the movie may not be as successful since Robin's skillset is not best cut out for this type of work. It would be wasteful for the producers to pay him this kind of money. Additionally, the argument misinterprets profits and financial success. It is important to note that while the film may have financial success and bring in a great deal of revenue, it may not maximize profits if the producers are paying such extensive amounts for Robin Good. It could even decrease profits because of the extreme cost.
Finally, the movie does not consider any sort of budget which is crucial to generating maximized profits. Spending so much money on one actor may limit the amount that they can spend in other areas of the film, potentially causing it to be less financially successful. For example, while the producers may be able to pay this much for Robin Good, that expense may be limiting other factors contributing to the movie's success. If they are not able to afford some of these important aspects such as costumes, props, setting, and film crew labor, the financial success could be tarnished. Without knowing the film's budget, we cannot conclude that spending this amount of money on one actor is a financially responsible decision that will maximize profits.
All in all, this argument is seriously lacking evidence and proper causality to be considered reasonable. Without more information in regards to the other factors of the film, the budget, and Robin Good's experience, it can not be concluded that paying several million dollars for Robin Good will maximize profits.
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.
---
The argument that paying Robin Good several million dollars to star in the the movie will lead to maximized profits is unsupported and unreasonable. This conclusion incorrectly utilizes causality, falsely parallels profit with financial success, uses faulty comparisons, and does not consider other factors that could contribute to the film's financial success.
For starters, this argument draws a very steep conclusion that paying more for the movie's star will lead to greater financial success. This claim is too far fetched to be innately supported by the sparse information provided. This causality is too extreme as there can be many other factors that may contribute or detract from a movie being financially successful and yielding the maximum profit. For example, while the movie may have an incredible star that they are paying a lot of money for, the plot and theme of the movie could be unpopular among viewers. Therefore, despite how much they are paying the star actor, the movie may not maximize profits. The same would go for other factors contributing to the success of the movie such as the other leading actors and actresses as well as the set up, props, and costumes that are used. Additionally, there is no evidence that paying Robin Good more money will cause him to perform better such that higher earnings can be expected.
Another key issue with the argument is that it falsely uses the success of Robin Good's previous films as evidence that this film will also be profitable. This is not a fair comparison to make, especially without any further details. For example, if Robin Good has had many successful romantic comedy films, but this film is an action movie, Robin Good may not be as well suited for this. Thus, the movie may not be as successful since Robin's skillset is not best cut out for this type of work. It would be wasteful for the producers to pay him this kind of money. Additionally, the argument misinterprets profits and financial success. It is important to note that while the film may have financial success and bring in a great deal of revenue, it may not maximize profits if the producers are paying such extensive amounts for Robin Good. It could even decrease profits because of the extreme cost.
Finally, the movie does not consider any sort of budget which is crucial to generating maximized profits. Spending so much money on one actor may limit the amount that they can spend in other areas of the film, potentially causing it to be less financially successful. For example, while the producers may be able to pay this much for Robin Good, that expense may be limiting other factors contributing to the movie's success. If they are not able to afford some of these important aspects such as costumes, props, setting, and film crew labor, the financial success could be tarnished. Without knowing the film's budget, we cannot conclude that spending this amount of money on one actor is a financially responsible decision that will maximize profits.
All in all, this argument is seriously lacking evidence and proper causality to be considered reasonable. Without more information in regards to the other factors of the film, the budget, and Robin Good's experience, it can not be concluded that paying several million dollars for Robin Good will maximize profits.
Moderators:
188 posts
