|
|
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.
23 May 2017, 18:48
Kudos
Bookmarks
Wondering if somebody could please review my AWA. Thought it was alright upon completion, looking back I notice so many typos, etc. Curious how this would score.
ARGUMENT
’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 in 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 argument above incorrecly assumes that if they pay actor Robin Good several million dollars to star in the forthcoming movie 3003, they will be most likely to maximize profits. Not only does this argument make unproven assumptions, but it also makes unsupportive comparisons with the success of Robin Good's past films.
Firstly, the argument that paying Robin Good several million dollars to star in the film will maximize profits makes many broad assumptions. If the target audience does not tend to be Robin Good fans, it may make no difference. If the movie in a children's animation and only requires voiceovers, paying top dollar for a highly paid moviestar could potentially even blow the budget causing the film to earn less profits.
Secondly, the author makes a dangerously poor connection between this film and the success of Robin Good's several films that were financially successful. If his other films had $100 million film budgets and were action movies with worldwide showings, that could significantly make a difference compared to a indipendent film with lower budgets and less movie theater showings. For example, Leonardo DiCaprio's smash hit Bungalo Joe earned $2 Billion and grossesd $1.5 Billion profit. The next year his indy film Max Payne only showed in ten theaters and earned $1 million in revenue. Max Payne sustained large losses despite DiCaprio's reduced paycut.
The author's arguments could be fixed, however, if supportive reasons were given. To begin with, if the target audience is huge Robin Good fans, paying a premium for him to take the starring role could in fact be a wise decision. Additionally, if this film has a strong comparison to Robin Good's prior films in overall budget, the number of anticipated movie theater showing, and type of movie, they could indeed be good prescedents for comparison. In essence, if it could be shown that there is a strong audience for this genre of film and they have a vocal tendency to prefer Robin Good's film presence, then it could be worthwhile to pay him for it.
As originally stated, however, the author's argument that the producers will maximize their movie profits by paying Robin Good a premium to star in their upcoming film has many flaws. While he may have a good idea, without providing supportive research and making connections with his broad assumptions, the reader could be making a gross mistake to take his advice.
ARGUMENT
’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 in 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 argument above incorrecly assumes that if they pay actor Robin Good several million dollars to star in the forthcoming movie 3003, they will be most likely to maximize profits. Not only does this argument make unproven assumptions, but it also makes unsupportive comparisons with the success of Robin Good's past films.
Firstly, the argument that paying Robin Good several million dollars to star in the film will maximize profits makes many broad assumptions. If the target audience does not tend to be Robin Good fans, it may make no difference. If the movie in a children's animation and only requires voiceovers, paying top dollar for a highly paid moviestar could potentially even blow the budget causing the film to earn less profits.
Secondly, the author makes a dangerously poor connection between this film and the success of Robin Good's several films that were financially successful. If his other films had $100 million film budgets and were action movies with worldwide showings, that could significantly make a difference compared to a indipendent film with lower budgets and less movie theater showings. For example, Leonardo DiCaprio's smash hit Bungalo Joe earned $2 Billion and grossesd $1.5 Billion profit. The next year his indy film Max Payne only showed in ten theaters and earned $1 million in revenue. Max Payne sustained large losses despite DiCaprio's reduced paycut.
The author's arguments could be fixed, however, if supportive reasons were given. To begin with, if the target audience is huge Robin Good fans, paying a premium for him to take the starring role could in fact be a wise decision. Additionally, if this film has a strong comparison to Robin Good's prior films in overall budget, the number of anticipated movie theater showing, and type of movie, they could indeed be good prescedents for comparison. In essence, if it could be shown that there is a strong audience for this genre of film and they have a vocal tendency to prefer Robin Good's film presence, then it could be worthwhile to pay him for it.
As originally stated, however, the author's argument that the producers will maximize their movie profits by paying Robin Good a premium to star in their upcoming film has many flaws. While he may have a good idea, without providing supportive research and making connections with his broad assumptions, the reader could be making a gross mistake to take his advice.
Moderators:
188 posts
