Events & Promotions
|
|
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.
Nov 2007:30 AM PST
-08:30 AM PST
Learn what truly sets the UC Riverside MBA apart and how it helps in your professional growth
earnit
Joined: 06 Mar 2014
Last visit: 21 Dec 2016
Posts: 164
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 84
Location: India
Schools: INSEAD Jan '16 Tepper '16 ISB '16 Simon '18 (A)
GMAT Date: 04-30-2015
Products:
14 Jul 2015, 08:15
Kudos
Bookmarks
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 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
RESPONSE: The argument contends that 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. The argument justifies the above conclusion by stating that, in the past, robin has been paid similar amount to work in films that were financially successful. The argument manipulates the facts and conveys a distorted view of the situation. The argument fails to consider certain key factors on the basis of which it could be evaluated. Hence, the argument is weak, unconvincing, and has several flaws.
First, the argument claims that the producers of the movie 3003 will most likely maximize their
profits if they pay the actor several million dollars, given the fact that earlier films of the actor that were very successful, their producers had paid the
actor similar amount. This is a weak and unsubstantiated claim. The argument fails to demonstrate any correlation between the amount paid to Robin and the financial success of a movie. It is possible that earlier movies were a huge financial success because of a variety of reasons such as, fantastic script, imaculate direction,
intense marketing, and many others. The argument could have been much clearer, if the above claim was substantiated with evidence that highlights the link between the payment made to the actor and the financial success of the movie.
Second, the argument assumes that the amount paid to Robin is far more than any other person involved with the movie will make.
The argument relies on an assumption, for which there is no clear evidence.
It is possible that the movie might actually turn out to be a roaring financial success, with the result that the producers or even the distributors
might end up earning an amount far more than that paid to Robin. The argument could have been much better, if it mentioned that the amount paid to Robin is far more than the maximum possible projection of the financial success of the movie 3003.
Finally, the argument makes the classic mistake of assuming that the movie 3003 will be successful.
This is a weak assumption as it is not substantiated with any evidence. In the event that the movie fails to make an impact on the box office,
the question of maximizing profits is thrown out of the window. It is possible that the producers might actually end up in a loss. There are no evidences to prove the fact that the movie is going to be a success and that paying several million dollars to Robin will catapult the movie to a state of huge financial success, except the weak comparison of the actor's previous movies and the subsequent financial success and his respective payment.
The argument is more of a wishful thinking rather than a substantiated evidence.
As it stands, however, the argument is weak for the reasons indicated above, and therefore is weak and unsupported.
It could have been considerably strengthened, had all the relevant facts been substantiated with evidence.
In order to assess merits of any situation, it is imperative that full knowledge of all the contributing factors is ascertained. Without such information,
the argument is left weak, unsubstantiated, and open to debate.
RESPONSE: The argument contends that 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. The argument justifies the above conclusion by stating that, in the past, robin has been paid similar amount to work in films that were financially successful. The argument manipulates the facts and conveys a distorted view of the situation. The argument fails to consider certain key factors on the basis of which it could be evaluated. Hence, the argument is weak, unconvincing, and has several flaws.
First, the argument claims that the producers of the movie 3003 will most likely maximize their
profits if they pay the actor several million dollars, given the fact that earlier films of the actor that were very successful, their producers had paid the
actor similar amount. This is a weak and unsubstantiated claim. The argument fails to demonstrate any correlation between the amount paid to Robin and the financial success of a movie. It is possible that earlier movies were a huge financial success because of a variety of reasons such as, fantastic script, imaculate direction,
intense marketing, and many others. The argument could have been much clearer, if the above claim was substantiated with evidence that highlights the link between the payment made to the actor and the financial success of the movie.
Second, the argument assumes that the amount paid to Robin is far more than any other person involved with the movie will make.
The argument relies on an assumption, for which there is no clear evidence.
It is possible that the movie might actually turn out to be a roaring financial success, with the result that the producers or even the distributors
might end up earning an amount far more than that paid to Robin. The argument could have been much better, if it mentioned that the amount paid to Robin is far more than the maximum possible projection of the financial success of the movie 3003.
Finally, the argument makes the classic mistake of assuming that the movie 3003 will be successful.
This is a weak assumption as it is not substantiated with any evidence. In the event that the movie fails to make an impact on the box office,
the question of maximizing profits is thrown out of the window. It is possible that the producers might actually end up in a loss. There are no evidences to prove the fact that the movie is going to be a success and that paying several million dollars to Robin will catapult the movie to a state of huge financial success, except the weak comparison of the actor's previous movies and the subsequent financial success and his respective payment.
The argument is more of a wishful thinking rather than a substantiated evidence.
As it stands, however, the argument is weak for the reasons indicated above, and therefore is weak and unsupported.
It could have been considerably strengthened, had all the relevant facts been substantiated with evidence.
In order to assess merits of any situation, it is imperative that full knowledge of all the contributing factors is ascertained. Without such information,
the argument is left weak, unsubstantiated, and open to debate.
17 Jul 2015, 13:50
Kudos
Bookmarks
Hi earnit! My foremost comment is that you repeat yourself quite a bit, particularly with the phrase (and its variants) "the argument is weak." To illustrate my point, I have underlined in blue every time you have used that phrase. It's fine to use it, but it is a quite generic statement and doesn't advance your argument, so when you use it repeatedly, you are only wasting time and words. The sentence is simply a claim without a warrant. Instead of saying X argument is weak, a sentence is better allocated illustrating why it is weak. Similarly, sentences like "this argument could have been better with more evidence" is also pretty obvious and doesn't really advance your argument. Of course arguments with more evidence are better! That goes without saying. Sentences like these are not specific to the prompt itself.
RESPONSE: The argument contends that 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. The argument justifies the above conclusion by stating that, in the past, robin has been paid similar amount to work in films that were financially successful. The argument manipulates the facts and conveys a distorted view of the situation. The argument fails to consider certain key factors on the basis of which it could be evaluated. Hence, the argument is weak, unconvincing, and has several flaws.
First, the argument claims that the producers of the movie 3003 will most likely maximize their
profits if they pay the actor several million dollars, given the fact that earlier films of the actor that were very successful, their producers had paid the
actor similar amount. This is a weak and unsubstantiated claim. The argument fails to demonstrate any correlation between the amount paid to Robin and the financial success of a movie. It is possible that earlier movies were a huge financial success because of a variety of reasons such as, fantastic script, imaculate direction,
intense marketing, and many others. The argument could have been much clearer, if the above claim was substantiated with evidence that highlights the link between the payment made to the actor and the financial success of the movie.
Second, the argument assumes that the amount paid to Robin is far more than any other person involved with the movie will make.
The argument relies on an assumption, for which there is no clear evidence. It is possible that the movie might actually turn out to be a roaring financial success, with the result that the producers or even the distributors might end up earning an amount far more than that paid to Robin. The argument could have been much better, if it mentioned that the amount paid to Robin is far more than the maximum possible projection of the financial success of the movie 3003.
Finally, the argument makes the classic mistake of assuming that the movie 3003 will be successful.
This is a weak assumption as it is not substantiated with any evidence. In the event that the movie fails to make an impact on the box office,
the question of maximizing profits is thrown out of the window. It is possible that the producers might actually end up in a loss. There are no evidences to prove the fact that the movie is going to be a success and that paying several million dollars to Robin will catapult the movie to a state of huge financial success, except the weak comparison of the actor's previous movies and the subsequent financial success and his respective payment.
The argument is more of a wishful thinking rather than a substantiated evidence.
As it stands, however, the argument is weak for the reasons indicated above, and therefore is weak and unsupported.
It could have been considerably strengthened, had all the relevant facts been substantiated with evidence.
In order to assess merits of any situation, it is imperative that full knowledge of all the contributing factors is ascertained. Without such information,
the argument is left weak, unsubstantiated, and open to debate.
1. Correlation is not causation. This is a good point. I think you should expand upon your analysis. A corollary to your main point here is that past success does not ensure future success. You can say more explicitly, "Just because previous movies starring Robin performed well, does not mean all future movies starring Robin are guaranteed to have the same success." Perhaps Robin is really old now, and the movies he was successful in were made many decades ago and he has lost his appeal among audiences? That could certainly play a factor.
2. Your second point is that "the argument assumes the amount paid to Robin is far more than any other person would make." Even though that is an uncorroborated assumption, what does attacking that assumption get you? For a good AWA score, you need to engage with the logic and the conclusion of the prompt. How does the fact that Robin might not make as much as other individuals refute the prompt's conclusion that Robin should be paid a large amount for the movie to be successful? You should prioritize attacking assumptions that most directly and significantly attack the conclusion of the prompt. Not all assumptions are equally "bad" or "useful" to criticize.
3. The third point does not clash with the main point of the prompt, in my opinion. The prompt's conclusion is less about the movie being successful in and of itself, but more about the fact that paying Robin a lot of money will cause the movie to be a success. You need to refute that chain of logic. Perhaps a better avenue of criticism would be that Robin does not need to be paid so much! If he still stars in the movie but gets a smaller paycheck, the movie might still be a big hit. Movie success isn't necessarily dependent on how much the actors themselves make. Movie success is more dependent on which actors play a role and how well they play their roles.
RESPONSE: The argument contends that 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. The argument justifies the above conclusion by stating that, in the past, robin has been paid similar amount to work in films that were financially successful. The argument manipulates the facts and conveys a distorted view of the situation. The argument fails to consider certain key factors on the basis of which it could be evaluated. Hence, the argument is weak, unconvincing, and has several flaws.
First, the argument claims that the producers of the movie 3003 will most likely maximize their
profits if they pay the actor several million dollars, given the fact that earlier films of the actor that were very successful, their producers had paid the
actor similar amount. This is a weak and unsubstantiated claim. The argument fails to demonstrate any correlation between the amount paid to Robin and the financial success of a movie. It is possible that earlier movies were a huge financial success because of a variety of reasons such as, fantastic script, imaculate direction,
intense marketing, and many others. The argument could have been much clearer, if the above claim was substantiated with evidence that highlights the link between the payment made to the actor and the financial success of the movie.
Second, the argument assumes that the amount paid to Robin is far more than any other person involved with the movie will make.
The argument relies on an assumption, for which there is no clear evidence. It is possible that the movie might actually turn out to be a roaring financial success, with the result that the producers or even the distributors might end up earning an amount far more than that paid to Robin. The argument could have been much better, if it mentioned that the amount paid to Robin is far more than the maximum possible projection of the financial success of the movie 3003.
Finally, the argument makes the classic mistake of assuming that the movie 3003 will be successful.
This is a weak assumption as it is not substantiated with any evidence. In the event that the movie fails to make an impact on the box office,
the question of maximizing profits is thrown out of the window. It is possible that the producers might actually end up in a loss. There are no evidences to prove the fact that the movie is going to be a success and that paying several million dollars to Robin will catapult the movie to a state of huge financial success, except the weak comparison of the actor's previous movies and the subsequent financial success and his respective payment.
The argument is more of a wishful thinking rather than a substantiated evidence.
As it stands, however, the argument is weak for the reasons indicated above, and therefore is weak and unsupported.
It could have been considerably strengthened, had all the relevant facts been substantiated with evidence.
In order to assess merits of any situation, it is imperative that full knowledge of all the contributing factors is ascertained. Without such information,
the argument is left weak, unsubstantiated, and open to debate.
1. Correlation is not causation. This is a good point. I think you should expand upon your analysis. A corollary to your main point here is that past success does not ensure future success. You can say more explicitly, "Just because previous movies starring Robin performed well, does not mean all future movies starring Robin are guaranteed to have the same success." Perhaps Robin is really old now, and the movies he was successful in were made many decades ago and he has lost his appeal among audiences? That could certainly play a factor.
2. Your second point is that "the argument assumes the amount paid to Robin is far more than any other person would make." Even though that is an uncorroborated assumption, what does attacking that assumption get you? For a good AWA score, you need to engage with the logic and the conclusion of the prompt. How does the fact that Robin might not make as much as other individuals refute the prompt's conclusion that Robin should be paid a large amount for the movie to be successful? You should prioritize attacking assumptions that most directly and significantly attack the conclusion of the prompt. Not all assumptions are equally "bad" or "useful" to criticize.
3. The third point does not clash with the main point of the prompt, in my opinion. The prompt's conclusion is less about the movie being successful in and of itself, but more about the fact that paying Robin a lot of money will cause the movie to be a success. You need to refute that chain of logic. Perhaps a better avenue of criticism would be that Robin does not need to be paid so much! If he still stars in the movie but gets a smaller paycheck, the movie might still be a big hit. Movie success isn't necessarily dependent on how much the actors themselves make. Movie success is more dependent on which actors play a role and how well they play their roles.
earnit
Joined: 06 Mar 2014
Last visit: 21 Dec 2016
Posts: 164
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 84
Location: India
Schools: INSEAD Jan '16 Tepper '16 ISB '16 Simon '18 (A)
GMAT Date: 04-30-2015
Products:
17 Jul 2015, 14:34
Kudos
Bookmarks
All points duly noted.
Thank you for your feedback.
Much appreciated.
Thank you for your feedback.
Much appreciated.
