GMAT Exam is coming soon, would appreciate any help
[#permalink]
09 Oct 2018, 03:12
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.
Answer:
In order for the producers of the movie 3003 to maximize their profits, the author argues that they must be willing to pay actor Robin Good millions of dollars to star in it. This argument suffers from a number of flaws, ranging from flimsy use of evidence and inappropriate generalizations.
First, the author cited that Good has been paid the same amount of money to work in several films which became very successful. However, all films are different, and there is no assurance that Good is the reason the films he worked on in the past became successful. A vast number of factors could have resulted to the success of Good's previous films such as a good storyline, the director, other actors, the producers, the marketing campaigns, and vast distribution. Thus, the success of the previous films cannot completely be attributable to the presence of Robin Good in the movie.
Second, even if the producers are willing to pay Robin Good millions of dollars, do they really have the budget for it? No matter how willing they are to pay the actor that amount of money, if they are not capable to do so, Robin Good will not be starring in it, and the argument will crumble.
Third, films that are financially succesful do not necessarily result in the producers maximizing their profits. Since profits are calculated from the revenues less expenses, in order to maximize profits, the film should have high revenues, while expenses be kept at a minimum. Moreover, the increase in revenues caused by Good starring in the movie, might not compensate for the millions of dollars that will be paid to him, which may result in the film losing money.
In order to improve the argument, a more logical evidence must be presented such that the author can prove that Good is indeed the reason the previous films became financially successful. Furthermore, the author must properly demonstrate that the increase in revenues caused by Good starring in the movie will be high enough to compensate for the amount that will be paid to him.