AWA - request for evaluation

Question

Thanks for everyone helping me improve my AWA:

"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 financially very successful."

In the passage the author states that the producers of the new movie "3003" can maximize their profits if they are willing to pay Robin Good a multi million dollar salary to star in the movie. This is based on the premise that Robin Good in the past has been paid a similar amount to work in films that were very financially successful. However on deeper analysis it becomes apparent that certain relevant aspects have not been taken into consideration, leading to a number of logical flaws and mistaken assumptions.

One such flaw is the wrong assumption that Robin Good is the only reason for the financial success of his past movies. It however might be possible that other reasons like the story, special effects or any other stars acting in the movie were the cause in the past success of the movies in which Robin Good was staring. To render this argument more valid, additional data showing that the moviegoers paid especially to see Robin Good staring in his past movies rather than being interested in the movie itself is needed.

Further the author wrongly assumes that the above average salary of one actor (Robin Good) will not have an adverse effect on the motivation of the remaining crew to star in the movie too. However in reality a high inequality of salaries among a group of people can lead to unwanted effects such as colleagues who are quitting the job for one which is better paid or low motivation of the persons involved in the group not receiving a multi-million dollar salary. To strenghten the author's argument, a survey among the persons involved has to be conducted in order to get a feeling of whether the workforce might be negatively affected by one above average salary.

More over the writer does not take the producers financial ability into consideration. By comparing the past movies in which Robin Good stared and was paid millions of dollars one has to consider the financial strength of the producer and its cost of raising money. The producers of the movie 3003 might be newcomers paying high interest rates (risk capital) for their projects. Hence if this is true, paying a multi-million salary to just one actor will most probably minimize the profits. To overcome this flaw, the author should collect data about the financial strength of the producers.

After closer examination of the passage presented, it is apparent that there are several logical flaws. The recommendations in the essay show how the argument may be strengthened and made more logically sound.

ENGRTOMBA2018 · Answer

Good attempt at the AWA prompt. I have marked grammatical errors in red above. Text after comma in red areas above, mention the correct version of the same. I will give it a 4 on account of many grammatical errors and lack of coherence in the 3rd flaw. Also try to shoot for 500 words with 3 flaw paragraphs each with 5-6 lines minimum. Alternately, I used a modified template that incorporated elements from Economist GMAT tutor's and Chineseburned's AWA template : how-to-get-6-0-awa-my-guide-64327.html

reto · Answer

its cost of raising money, whose cost ? Its is not used for persons. The producers of the movie 3003 might be newcomers paying high interest rates~~(risk capital)~~ for their projects. Hence if this, what is? is true, paying a multi-million salary to just one actor will most probably minimize the profits. To overcome this flaw, the author should collect data about the financial strength of the producers. You could similarly argue that the moviegoers would go to watch the movie, thus helping producers realizing the profit margins they set themselves before signing RG. What if there is a recession all around due to which moviegoers will not be going in the same numbers as before. Instead of the way you have talked about the financial strength of the producer, just talk about profit = revenues-cost and then build upon the aspects of revenues and costs when you talk about the profits for the producers.

Hi Engr2012

Thanks again for this brilliant review. Can not give you 2 kudos unfortunately. For me the producers in the paragraph above refers to a company, if so, I can use "its" as a pronoun can I?

Best rgrds

Hi  Engr2012

Thanks again for this brilliant review. Can not give you 2 kudos unfortunately. For me the producers in the paragraph above refers to a company, if so, I can use "its" as a pronoun can I?

Best rgrds

ENGRTOMBA2018 · Answer

Usually when you talk about movie production, it is implied that a person or a team of producers work on it and not a company. Also, you start to switch terms between singular producer and plural producers for the same context. This is a bit confusing. 'Its' is very ambiguously used in the sentence. These were the reasons why I marked off the text above in red.

Mentioned below is what I had prepared when I was preparing for AWA and had received a score rating of 5-5.5 from Economist GMAT Tutor. Hope this helps.

In the editorial that appeared in a popular entertainment magazine, the argument's author concludes that the producers of the forthcoming movie, 3003 will maximize their profits as they have asked Robin Good to star in it . This conclusion is based on the fact that the previous movie in which Robin Good starred and was paid a similar amount did very well financially. On a deeper analysis of the argument, it becomes apparent that there are certain relevant details that are missing. The argument stated in such a way, assumes leaps of faith and mistaken assumptions and has logical flaws.

One such flaw is the assumption that the past trends of the movie industry are going to continue in the future. This is a dubious assumption as the reasons for a movie to do well on the box office can be varied and not just dependent on the actor who starred in it. These reasons include things such as actors, theme of the movie (whether it was a popular theme among the cinema goers), total budget of the movie (whether the movie was made on a small budget, leading to a greater profits if the movie does well) etc. An aggregate of these reasons leads to a movie being successful at the box office. The argument would do well if it provides sufficient evidence to support the assertion that the past trends will continue in the future as well specifically for movie 3003.

Moreover, the argument assumes that paying Robin Good the same amount that he was in his previous movie will most probably lead to the same results. The argument fails to take into account the morale of the co-actors of Robin Good in the movie 3003. If an actor is getting paid exorbitant amount of money compared to the rest of the actors, then the movie might still not do well at the box office. The reason for the same is that once his fellow actors come to know that they are getting underpaid, they also might ask for raises in their remunerations, better profit sharing after the movie is released and even better roles for themselves. This would then lead to many other variables added to the whole scenario. Thus, for the argument to be strengthened, proper evidence showing that the overall morale of the movie crew will not suffer because of 1 actor getting paid a lot more than the rest of the crew.

Finally, the argument make the questionable assumption that the last movie of Robin Good had a similar budget as the movie 3003. This is a flawed assumption as the argument lacks any evidence to support this assumption. If the budgets are not comparable, then paying Robin Good may not maximize the profits for the producers of the movie 3003. The argument will be supported further if the editor provides evidence that the budgets are comparable.

In conclusion, the argument provided by the columnist in the popular entertainment magazine is based on some leaps of faith, mistaken assumption and logical flaws. The recommendations mentioned in this essay will aid in alleviating these issues in the argument and will thus strengthen it further. Answers to questions raised above will provide the necessary evidence to make a strong point for the conclusion put forth by the argument.

AWA - request for evaluation

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards