Does someone mind critiquing my essay/giving it a grade?

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.”



________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The argument that the producers of movie 3003 can maximize profits by hiring Robin Good is flawed for several reasons. The statement is flawed because it assumes that the past will dictate the future, believes that maximizing profits can only be done so through by hiring a famous cast, and fails to look at outside factors.

First of all, the argument that hiring the actor Robin Good is flawed because it assumes that because his movies have done well in the past that they will do well in the future. While it may very well be true that some films with Robin Good were financially successful, there is a lot of assumptions that are made. For example, the argument assumes that Robin Good was the sole reason that the film was successful was because of Robin Good. In addition, the argument lacks a timeframe of Robin Goods career. For example, were movies from early on in his career financially successful while more recent movies were not? To look at the success of movies that he has starred in, we would need additional information to strengthen the argument such as the percentage of movies that he starred in that were successful, the genres of movies that he starred in that did well, the timeframe of his acting career, and more. As such, the arguments first weakness is due to the fact that the author of the article assumes that the past will dictate the future without looking at the details within.

In addition, the argument that the author makes is flawed because it fails to look at maximizing profits adequately. There are several factors that go into a movies bottom-line: animations, production equipment, location of filming, etc. The case is just one certain area of this. To make an argument that assumes the producers can maximize profits by hiring Robin Good, it would be helpful to know how much is being spent in other areas, where cuts to costs can be made, and the opportunity costs of hiring Robin Good. For example, if hiring Robin Good costs $10 million and is expected to bring in an additional $20 million rather than another actor, this sounds promising as the movie will net $10 million. But if they can cut out $20 million worth of animations at the cost of only $5 million in revenue, then this is a better option. Therefore, the author needs to look at all areas of revenue and costs (including opportunity costs) before assuming that hiring Robin Good will maximize profits.

Last of all, the argument is flawed because it fails to look at outside factors and focuses only on one that the producers can control. Movies are often released at certain times of the year to maximize profits. As such, does the movie follow this trend and is it being released at the most opportune time? This is just one example of an outside factor however. In addition, it is important to understand how movies of this genre normally do financially, how do people prefer to watch movies (ie: online streaming, theaters, etc.), and more. Outside factors such as these are important and need to be considered when making the argument that the movie will be financially successful if Robin Good is hired.

In conclusion, the argument by the authors of the entertainment magazine is flawed for several reasons. The argument made assumes that the past dictates the future, that maximizing profits can only come from a significant cast, and fails to look at outside factors. This is not to say that the argument could not be correct, but it is in dire need of additional information to strengthen it.