|
|
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.
GAroxa
Current Student
Joined: 19 Dec 2020
Last visit: 03 Jan 2022
Posts: 3
Location: Brazil
Concentration: Technology, General Management
Schools: Harvard '24 (D) Sloan '24 (A) Wharton '24 (D) Stanford '24 (D) Kellogg '24 (A$) Columbia CBS '24 (D)
GMAT 1: 750 Q49 V44
GPA: 3.55
WE:Account Management (Other)
Schools: Harvard '24 (D) Sloan '24 (A) Wharton '24 (D) Stanford '24 (D) Kellogg '24 (A$) Columbia CBS '24 (D)
GMAT 1: 750 Q49 V44
Posts: 3
03 Jan 2021, 08:42
Kudos
Bookmarks
Hi there! This is was my first trial at answering a AWA question. Would you please help me figure out if I did well or not? Thank you!
Prompt:
“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.”
Essay:
While the author makes several valid points, her conclusion that the producers of the forthcoming movie are most likely to maximize their profits by casting Robin Good fails to account for multiple factors that would otherwise undermine said conclusion. In focusing that Robing Good's appearance will maximize 3003's profits, she fails to mention whether the other movies were financially successful solely because Robin was part of the cast, whether his payment in previous works was proportional to the amount other actors in the cast were also paid and, finally, whether his addition to 3003's cast will bring more revenue than the costs of his salary.
The author correlates Robin's appearance in previous financially successful movies to their success. In doing so, she focus on the known possible similarity and fails to account for any differences between these movies and 3003. It is a problem of correlation and causation: were the movies successful because Robin worked in them or was Robin just another addition to what would already be financially successful movies? The author could fix this by holding all other variants constant by, for example, saying that the movies mentioned had similar cast, budget, fan base, and genre as 3003's.
The author says that Robin was paid a several million dollars to work on other successful movies. She does not account for, however, the possibility that Robin's income could be proportional to the onscreen time he had on those movies or, for example, whether his salary was similar to the other artists in the cast and team. It can be the case that he was the main actor on previous movies, whereas he would not be the main star on 3003. If that were true, his guest appearance may not be enough to attract the alleged financial success. The author could correct this issue by delimiting the amount of time and nature of Robin's appearance on 3003, as well as how it compares to the other aforementioned movies.
Another thing to consider is the relationship between revenue and costs when thinking about possible increases in profits. The author assumes that the appearance of Robin on the movie, holding the other suggestions mentioned in previous paragraphs true, will make the movie increase its profits. By saying that, she assumes that the several million dollars in added cost will not be greater than the marginal revenue from the addition of Robin to the cast. It could be the case that, even by adding such a star, the movie does not make enough money to cover the costs of hiring Robin Good, having the opposite effect of what was originally thought. In order to fix this issue, the author can explicitly say that Robin Good's addition to the cast will maximize revenue to a considerably larger extent than it will maximize the production's costs.
The author assumes several things in the construction of her argument. She assumes that Robin's appearance was one of the causes of financial success in other movies, that the amount to be paid to Robin in previous movies was proportional to his appearance, and that he will allow the production to maximize revenue to a greater extent than it will maximize costs. As said before, by holding all other variables constant, by specifying how Robin would participate in 3003's production, and by stating how the added marginal revenue of Robin's addition to the cast compares to its added marginal costs, the author can foul-proof her conclusion.
Prompt:
“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.”
Essay:
While the author makes several valid points, her conclusion that the producers of the forthcoming movie are most likely to maximize their profits by casting Robin Good fails to account for multiple factors that would otherwise undermine said conclusion. In focusing that Robing Good's appearance will maximize 3003's profits, she fails to mention whether the other movies were financially successful solely because Robin was part of the cast, whether his payment in previous works was proportional to the amount other actors in the cast were also paid and, finally, whether his addition to 3003's cast will bring more revenue than the costs of his salary.
The author correlates Robin's appearance in previous financially successful movies to their success. In doing so, she focus on the known possible similarity and fails to account for any differences between these movies and 3003. It is a problem of correlation and causation: were the movies successful because Robin worked in them or was Robin just another addition to what would already be financially successful movies? The author could fix this by holding all other variants constant by, for example, saying that the movies mentioned had similar cast, budget, fan base, and genre as 3003's.
The author says that Robin was paid a several million dollars to work on other successful movies. She does not account for, however, the possibility that Robin's income could be proportional to the onscreen time he had on those movies or, for example, whether his salary was similar to the other artists in the cast and team. It can be the case that he was the main actor on previous movies, whereas he would not be the main star on 3003. If that were true, his guest appearance may not be enough to attract the alleged financial success. The author could correct this issue by delimiting the amount of time and nature of Robin's appearance on 3003, as well as how it compares to the other aforementioned movies.
Another thing to consider is the relationship between revenue and costs when thinking about possible increases in profits. The author assumes that the appearance of Robin on the movie, holding the other suggestions mentioned in previous paragraphs true, will make the movie increase its profits. By saying that, she assumes that the several million dollars in added cost will not be greater than the marginal revenue from the addition of Robin to the cast. It could be the case that, even by adding such a star, the movie does not make enough money to cover the costs of hiring Robin Good, having the opposite effect of what was originally thought. In order to fix this issue, the author can explicitly say that Robin Good's addition to the cast will maximize revenue to a considerably larger extent than it will maximize the production's costs.
The author assumes several things in the construction of her argument. She assumes that Robin's appearance was one of the causes of financial success in other movies, that the amount to be paid to Robin in previous movies was proportional to his appearance, and that he will allow the production to maximize revenue to a greater extent than it will maximize costs. As said before, by holding all other variables constant, by specifying how Robin would participate in 3003's production, and by stating how the added marginal revenue of Robin's addition to the cast compares to its added marginal costs, the author can foul-proof her conclusion.
Moderators:
188 posts
