Sajjad1994 Requesting you to please review my AWA. I am writing GMAT on 22nd June 2021
Question
Quote:
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.”
My response:The argument presented here, that is reportedly exerpted from a popular entertainment magazine, reaches a quick conclusion, skipping basic assessment and essential information. Thus, the argument is too flawed to provide any insight to the reader.
In the argument, the author states that paying millions of dollars to Robin Good to star in the movie 3003, an amount far more than any other person involved with the movie, will most likely result in the producers earning maximum profits possible from the project. The reason quoted is that paying such an amount to Robin Good in the past has resulted in financially successful projects. Here, the author has clearly misinterpreted the cause and effect case for the successful projects. While there is no denying that the star actor has a significant impact on the financial success of a project, there could be various other factors behind it. These may include, but are not limited to, storyline, clear target group, cinemetography, script, acting by other actors. Clearly, there must have been some impact of these parameters in the previous financially successful proejcts, in which Robin Good started. The influence of these factors in the financial successes of Robin Good, good or bad or negligible, has not been provided in the argument at all. This makes this conclusion unconvincing.
Apart from an unconvincing analysis, the author has not attempted to confirm the validation of payments made to Robin Good in the earlier projects. Generally, neither the producer nor the actor is willing to disclose the amount in media. So such infomation is likely to come via any internal contact, a movie enthusiast, a cinema analyst who analyses cases, statements and other details associated with the industry, or someone else. It is the responsibility of the reporter to validate the authencity of such reports. The lack of any attempt to validate the same, or even the mention of the synonyms of the word 'validate', makes the information presented here hard to accept. While this is also possible that a responsible stakeloder, going against the trend, might have disclosed the amount Robin Good was paid, the mention of the same in the argument is important to weighten the argument.
There are numerous examples from the cinema industry that weaken the conclusion presented in the argument. One of them is, clearly, a recent movie of the Kollywood Superstar Mr. Rajnikant. Mr. Rajnikant has been a superstar in his industry for decades, and has been receiving hefty amounts for his performances. However, his recent movie, despite him playing a lead role, failed to replicate the magic most of his previous movies had shown. This is a glaring example, out of many, to show that the argument presented here might not face the tide of time.
Overall, the argument presented here, for the lack of authenticity and analysis, does not look more than a printed rumour. The argument may not add any value to the reader. Rather, it may have an ill effect on the reputation of the magazine. The editor must make sure that such flawed reports do not make to the final print of the magazine.