GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

It is currently 19 Oct 2018, 02:30

Close

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

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Kudos for brief AWA feedback

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 10 Jul 2016
Posts: 8
GMAT 1: 740 Q48 V42
Reviews Badge
Kudos for brief AWA feedback  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 30 Oct 2016, 05:55
1
1
Hi all,

In practice I have developed a homegrown AWA template. I usually finish the essay in 20 minutes and relax for 10, so I would like to make sure the quality is decent enough. Kudos for feedback... Thanks in advance!

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.’

This argument asserts that actor Robin Good should be hired for more than any other participant in the production of a new movie, as he has been paid comparable amounts to appear in financially successful movies in the past. This argument is inherently flawed for two major reasons. First, the author mistakenly assumes that the past is representative of the future. Second, the author's criteria for success is loosely defined, and not necessarily applicable to the film at hand.

Foremost, the author uses the logic that because Robin Good has been paid millions of dollars to star in movies, some of which were very succesful, his incorporation will make the movie 3003 successful as well. This line of reasoning fails on multiple fronts. For example, it is entirely possible that Robin Good was paid millions of dollars to star in three movies that were financially successful, but was also paid millions of dollars to star in twelve movies that were flops. In this example, Robin Good is more closely associated with financially unsuccessful movies than successful ones. Since the author does not provide any concrete context against which one can assess the meaning of "several films," he cannot use that evidence to support his claim. More importantly, even if all of Robin Goods' past movies have been financially successful, there is no guarantee that this will be the case in the forthcoming movie 3003. Perhaps in his past movies Good was accompanied by several other A-list actors that bolstered sales. In the current case, however, since Good would be paid "far more than any other person involved with the movie," it is likely that the remaining actors would not be as popular, and thus would not help boost sales. Thus, the fact that Good's prior movies were financially successful is not enough to support the author's claim.

The argument is also weakened by the author's ambiguous use of the term, "financially successful." The author does refer to the fact that the producers of 3003 are trying to maximize profits, but this goal is not necessarily synonymous with financial success. For example, a large blockbuster movie that grosses $1 billion in the global box office may be considered a financial success regardless of its production costs. In this specific example, if the movie hired several expensive actors that brought the production costs to $999 million, then the movie's financial success is not necessarily the profit-maximizing one. This logic can be extrapolated to the author's assessment of the production of the movie 3003. As a matter of fact, a movie might even be considered financially successful if it was expected to flop but beat expectations. Both examples serve to illustrate how the author's undefined use of the term "financially successful" serves to weaken his argument.

The author's argument, while seemingly well-reasoned, falls short on many accounts. Thus, before using the author's argument as a component in their decision to hire Robin Good, the producers should address the afore-mentioned concerns.
VP
VP
User avatar
G
Status: Top MBA Admissions Consultant
Joined: 24 Jul 2011
Posts: 1489
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V48
GRE 1: Q800 V740
Re: Kudos for brief AWA feedback  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 31 Oct 2016, 03:13
1
Top Contributor
pg19 wrote:
Hi all,

In practice I have developed a homegrown AWA template. I usually finish the essay in 20 minutes and relax for 10, so I would like to make sure the quality is decent enough. Kudos for feedback... Thanks in advance!

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.’

This argument asserts that actor Robin Good should be hired for more than any other participant in the production of a new movie, as he has been paid comparable amounts to appear in financially successful movies in the past. This argument is inherently flawed for two major reasons. First, the author mistakenly assumes that the past is representative of the future. Second, the author's criteria for success is loosely defined, and not necessarily applicable to the film at hand.

Foremost, the author uses the logic that because Robin Good has been paid millions of dollars to star in movies, some of which were very succesful, his incorporation will make the movie 3003 successful as well. This line of reasoning fails on multiple fronts. For example, it is entirely possible that Robin Good was paid millions of dollars to star in three movies that were financially successful, but was also paid millions of dollars to star in twelve movies that were flops. In this example, Robin Good is more closely associated with financially unsuccessful movies than successful ones. Since the author does not provide any concrete context against which one can assess the meaning of "several films," he cannot use that evidence to support his claim. More importantly, even if all of Robin Goods' past movies have been financially successful, there is no guarantee that this will be the case in the forthcoming movie 3003. Perhaps in his past movies Good was accompanied by several other A-list actors that bolstered sales. In the current case, however, since Good would be paid "far more than any other person involved with the movie," it is likely that the remaining actors would not be as popular, and thus would not help boost sales. Thus, the fact that Good's prior movies were financially successful is not enough to support the author's claim.

The argument is also weakened by the author's ambiguous use of the term, "financially successful." The author does refer to the fact that the producers of 3003 are trying to maximize profits, but this goal is not necessarily synonymous with financial success. For example, a large blockbuster movie that grosses $1 billion in the global box office may be considered a financial success regardless of its production costs. In this specific example, if the movie hired several expensive actors that brought the production costs to $999 million, then the movie's financial success is not necessarily the profit-maximizing one. This logic can be extrapolated to the author's assessment of the production of the movie 3003. As a matter of fact, a movie might even be considered financially successful if it was expected to flop but beat expectations. Both examples serve to illustrate how the author's undefined use of the term "financially successful" serves to weaken his argument.

The author's argument, while seemingly well-reasoned, falls short on many accounts. Thus, before using the author's argument as a component in their decision to hire Robin Good, the producers should address the afore-mentioned concerns.


Overall looks pretty good pg19. You might like to develop the argument for the second point a bit further though. While the term 'financially successful' may not have been defined exactly in the argument, it still does does mean that movies featuring Robin Good have done well financially (whatever the meaning is), and so this may indicate (even if weakly) that the current movie may do well too. To build the argument fully, you have to create doubt on whether the (past) movies' doing well themselves can directly be attributed to Good's performance or may be independent of it.
_________________

GyanOne | Top MBA Rankings and MBA Admissions Blog

Top MBA Admissions Consulting | Top MiM Admissions Consulting

Premium MBA Essay Review|Best MBA Interview Preparation|Exclusive GMAT coaching

Get a FREE Detailed MBA Profile Evaluation | Call us now +91 98998 31738

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 10 Jul 2016
Posts: 8
GMAT 1: 740 Q48 V42
Reviews Badge
Re: Kudos for brief AWA feedback  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 31 Oct 2016, 04:31
GyanOne Appreciate the feedback!
Non-Human User
User avatar
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 3214
Premium Member
Re: Kudos for brief AWA feedback  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 07 Oct 2018, 20:32
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
_________________

-
April 2018: New Forum dedicated to Verbal Strategies, Guides, and Resources

GMAT Club Bot
Re: Kudos for brief AWA feedback &nbs [#permalink] 07 Oct 2018, 20:32
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Kudos for brief AWA feedback

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


Copyright

GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.