The producers of the forthcoming movie 3003 will be most likely to max

Dear Sajjad1994 & other experts ,

Kindly review my response. Thanks in advance.

Response

The argument claims that the producers of the forthcoming movie 3003 will most likely be able to maximize their profits if they cast Robin Good as the protagonist in the movie by paying him several million dollars. The conclusion of this argument is based on the facts such as several other movies in which Robin Good was paid several million dollars to play a role were successful and the producers were financially successful. The conclusion of this argument is based on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hence, the argument is rather weak, unsubstantiated and has several flaws.

First, the argument readily assumes that if the producers pay several million dollars to Robin Good to play the lead in the movie , they will maximize their profits and it guarantees the success of the movie. However, in fact it is not at all clear whether casting Robin Good is a wise decision as the face of the lead is directly related to the story and characterization which the director usually forms having an actor or character in mind in most of the cases. It is more of a leap faith by the author that casting Robin Good ensure success of the movie thereby producers will be able to maximize the profit. The author fails to mention the budget of the movie which plays a vital role and the budget is inclusive of the salary of all the actors and one cannot claim without any substantiated data and proof that the producers will be willing to pay a huge sum to cast Robin Good for a low budget film.

Second, the argument would have been much clearer if it provided details or data supporting the success rate of several other movies acted by Robin Good. The success of several films acted by Robin Good can be solely due to several other factors such as the movie was directed by an experienced visionary director with an excellent team, ensuring tight plot and exceptional screen play. The choice of cast and crew members along with Robin Good acting could have paved way for the success of the film rather than Robin Good being the only reason for the success of the movies mentioned.

Finally , the author fails to mention one of the key factors based on which the argument could be evaluated. Every actor is well versed in acting in a specific genre in which they bring out their best. The author fails to mention the genre of the movie 3003 and if Robin Good would be ok to do this film. Apart from that the argument fails to mention the success rate of the Robin Wood. If the producers pay several million dollars , is the success assured and is all the movie acted by Robin Good for which he was paid billion dollars, were successful and were the producers able to maximize the profit ? Here the argument , without the following information remains more like a wishful thinking rather than a substantiated argument.

In conclusion, the argument is flawed and is based on the assumptions which are unconvincing. The argument can be likely strengthened by knowing the information such as the budget of the movie , if Robin Good will be suitable for this genre and role , success rate of the movies in which Robin Good was casted etc. In order to access the given argument , it is essential to have sufficient knowledge and data's. Without the above information , the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.

Good Luck

Hi, can someone please rate my essay?

The argument claims that producers of the movie 3003 will be most likely to maximize their profits if they are willing to pay actor Robin Good several millions of dollars to star in it even though that amount is far more than any other person involved with the movie will make. Stated in this way the argument lacks the relevants facts on basis of which it could be evaluated. The conclusion of the argument is based on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hence, the argument is rather weak and unconvincing.


First, the argument readily assumes that since the actor has been paid a similar amount in in the past to work in several films that were financially successful, paying a similar amout for the movie 3003 increases the chances of maximumizing the profits. This statement is a stretch and is not substantiated in any manner. The profit earned by a movie is the difference between the reveunue generated by the movie and the cost incurred while producing the same. To maximize the profit, the revenues need to maximized and the cost needs to be minimized. The revenue generated is greatly determined by the prices multiplexes pay to purchase the rights to show the movie in a cinema hall. This is governed by the audiences' response to the movie. There are various factors like genre, storyline, cinematography etc that govern how well is the movie received by the audience. The argument does not mention any details about the kind of movies Robin has done in the past which have been financially successful. Subsequently, no such details have been provided for the movie 3003 hence it is unreasonable to assume that this movie will do well financially. Moreover, the financial success of the movie does not guarantee maximization of profits. The cost incurred by the producers can be minimized by reducing the money that is being paid to the actors.


Second, the argument mentions that the amount paid to Robin Good is far more than any other person involved with the movie will make. This again is not substantiated in any manner. The argument does not mention whether Robin will be the lead actor of the movie or not. There could be other actors involved in the movie who have much difficult roles to play and expect a higher pay check. Inequality of pay may encourage other people involved in the movie to not perform to the best of their abilities which might negatively impact the audience reaction to the movie as a result of which the revenues may go down which is not desirable.


In conclusion, the argument is rather flawed and unconvincing due to the above-mentioned reasons. It could have been considerably strengthened if more details were given about the factors responsible for revenue genration. To evaluate merits of a certain argument, one needs to have full knowledge of all the contributing factors hence the argument is unconvincing and open to debate.

Good Luck

Please rate my essay, thank you!

-----

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.



The writer claims that in order for the movie 3003 to maximize their profits, they must pay "several million dollars" to hire Robin Good as the actor as in the past been paid a "similar amount" to work in several financially successful movies. However, the writer uses unwarranted assumptions, vague language, and does not provide sufficient evidence to support his claim and therefore does not create a convincing argument to support the hiring of Robin Good.

Firstly, the writer assumes and implies that because Robin Good was paid to work in films that were financially successful, that the movie 3003 will also be successful if Robin Good were hired to act. However, there is no evidence to support the his claim to show that Robin Good was indeed the factor that made these films successful. It is equally possible that these films were successful as they portrayed stories that were popular at the time of production, or because they had good marketing campaigns, or because the movies had some of the best producers. If the writer is in fact able to show that Robin Good's acting or popularity was indeed a factor that made these films financially successful then there may be a case to be a made regarding hiring Good for the movie 3003.

Secondly, even if the movies were successful as a result of Robin Good's involvement, the writer assumes that he will continue to have the same effect on the movies' success that he has had in the past. However, it is possible that he is not that popular an actor anymore or may no longer provide the same quality of acting. For all we know, he may even be retired. The writer must do more work evaluating whether the movie 3003's target audience is a fan of Robin Good, whether Good is still able to produce quality acting, and whether he is willing to be involved in the movie. Only once this information has been provided can the reader evaluate whether Robin Good's involvement would be a financially intelligent decision for the movie 3003.

Lastly, the writer claims that including Robin Good in the movie 3003 is the producer's best bet to maximize their profits. This argument seems to be based on the fact that Robin Good's previous movies have been financially successful. However, the language used here is vague - what does "financially successful" mean? Although the movies were financially successful, did the producers of Good's movies make any profits? How much profit did they make? These questions must be answered before making any statements around maximizing profits through Robin Good's involvement. Furthermore, the writer doers not provide any evidence for why this would be the best way for the producers of 3003 to maximize their profits. If hiring Robin Good will cost several million dollars, this will in fact reduce the amount of profits that the producers will make. If the producers goal is to maximize profits maybe they could instead hire a cheaper actor for the role and save millions of dollars. Alternatively, the producers could also look at other unnecessary costs that could be cut, such as unused equipment or background actors.

Therefore, for the reasons stated above, the writer of the magazine does not provide a strong enough case to pay "several million dollars" and hire Robin Good to act in movie 3003 simply in an attempt to maximize profits. The writer must provide more evidence and state his argument without unwarranted assumptions and vague language if they are to convince readers that hiring Robin Good for 3003 is a good decision.

---

Best,
JKM25

Good Luck

Could you please evaluate my answer to this prompt? Thank you in advance.

Prompt:

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...

Answer:

The author of the argument claims that if Robin Good stars in the upcoming movie 3003, its profits will most probably be maximized. This is supported by the fact that even though Robin will be highly paid, he has been paid equivalent amounts in several films that were indeed very financially successful. The argument's conclusion omits several key factors, such as the availability of alternative, more capable actors apable actors and assumes that 3003 is similar to the succesful films Robin starred at.

First of all, profits are a complex structure determined by both revenues and costs. On the one hand, Robin's high salary will increase the costs with a subsequent fall in profits. On the other hand revenues depend on the success of the film. Undoubtedly, one actor cannot guarantee the success of a film and, even more so, cannot guarantee maximising the revenues. For one thing, better actor alternatives than Robin Good may exist that fit better to the role. Even if Robin is the most well-suited for the role, he may not perform as well as he has in other movies.

In addition, the author states that Robin has worked in several films that were very financially successful. While Robin's may have contributed in those films' success, with the information provided one cannot determine whether Robin was the one who caused these films to be succesful. It may have been the scenario or some other actors, or even the timing of the films. Even if Robin was responsible for those films' success, they may be completely different when compared to 3003 in terms of characteristics such as genre, duration, protagonist screenplay etc. Therefore, Robin might not be able to bring the same success. Robin's contribution to 3003's profit could be better determined had the author provided information about the films that Robin starred at, how he contributed to their success, and how these films compare to 3003.

Lastly, the author explicitly mentions "maximize their profits" when it comes to movie's 3003 producers and "very financially succesful" when it comes to the succesful films Robin worked in. Even if the author addressed the issues presented in the previous paragraphs, one could be in a position to conclude that Robin would make the film a financial success. Nevertheless, one could, by no means, know whether Robin would maximize profits. Thus, the author should make a less extreme conclusion that would better match the evidence stated.

To sum up, the author of the argument fails to address the aforementioned issues, which are key factors to determining the validity of his conclusion. By providing further information about how Robin suits to the role, how he contributed to the success of other films and how the latter are similar to 3003, one would be able to better evaluate whether Robin can indeed contribute to the success of the film, but most probably not whether Robin can maximize its profits.

Good Luck

Hi Sajjad - just looking for another AWA Assessment. Thanks, as always!

Prompt
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.”


Response:

The argument being presented by the producers of 3003 is weak at best as well as based primarily on some significant assumptions. These assumptions will be discussed at length below, and include ignoring the types of movies or genres that Robin has previously starred in, the quality of 3003 itself, as well as other cast members that starred alongside Robin in previous movies. These are critical pieces of information that could seriously undermine the producers' argument that providing a multi-million dollar contract to Robin will result in the movie's success. More information must be collected related to the above assumptions before signing any contract with Robin. This information is also detailed below.

The first assumption made is that no information is provided about what other types of movies Robin was cast for and paid several million dollars. Relatedly, the genre that 3003 belongs to is not noted either. A primary concern is that if 3003 is a Romantic Comedy, but Robin usually stars in Action movies, this decision to commit several million dollars may not pay off at all. It also likely requires different acting skills to perform in different genres. Some breakdown of Robin's past movies would be useful in addressing this.

The second issue with the producers' argument, and one which may be tough to gauge but is nonetheless important, is the quality of the movie 3003. Quality would be affected by a number of conditions, such as other actors and actresses in the film, the past history of the producers and directors, and even the genre in terms of how popular it is to viewers at the moment. For example, if 3003 is a zombie-related film, but the audiences' desire for more zombie films is extremely low, there is no guarantee any actor or actress could make the film succeed. Oppositely, if 3003 is a zombie film and these types of films have become increasingly popular, and Robin is also a well-liked performer, then it may be a perfect fit. Regardless, concerningly little detail was given to assess this.

The third and final concern within the producers' argument is that there's no mention of Robin's role in previously successful movies, nor who he starred alongside. While several million dollars is a lot of money, some big budget films can pay a number of starts tens of millions of dollars. Therefore, if Robin has acted in a number of big budget films, but only served as a less important character than the main actors and actresses, he may not be as big of a draw as expected. Alternatively, if Robin has mainly been the star of the movies that were successful and for which he was paid several million dollars for, then a much better case can be made. This should also be a priority to understand.

Based on the above issues, some further information should be provided to alleviate concerns or doubts about the film's potential success. Fortunately, most of the gaps in information can be addressed easily. The producer's should provide information about what genre 3003 fits into and what genre Robin Good's compared films fit into. Even if only a couple of of Robin's previous successful movies were similar, that would provide some assurance. Next, the producers should look into what role Robin played in his past movies and what other actors or actresses he starred alongside. There may be a relationship between these conditions that will give a better indication of how likely 3003 is to succeed. This would help justify the major contract. Lastly, while quality is difficult to gauge, the producers could provide evidence that the cast and staff behind 3003 are successful. For example, have the directors, producers, or set designers won awards for their work on past films? If so, despite not being directly related to Robin Good's role, if Robin is brought onto the cast, it would enhance the likelihood of the film's success. Alternatively, if the other staff have been associated with poorly produced or directed films, no matter how good of a performance Robin provides, if early reviews are very negative, people may not want to spend money on the film.

Overall, the producers' argument is very limited in terms of evidence provided to support it. The argument fails to explain why exactly Robin's role in the film will lead to greater revenue generated. There are many factors that contribute to a film's success, such as the other cast members starring in the film alongside Robin, the staff directing or producing the film, and the film's genre in relation to what Robin typically stars in as well as what genres are actually popular. As discussed, more detail related to these concerns should be provided by the producers before they commit to a multi-million dollar contract with Robin, assuming it will lead to more success and revenue. Fortunately, all of this information should be easy to access so a better-informed decision can be made.

Good Luck

Please rate and review my essay.

Solution:

A Column in a popular entertainment magazine claims that the producers of the forthcoming movie 3003 will most likely maximize profits if they are willing to pay Robin Good several million dollars to star in it. The author bases his claim on the evidence of past several films in which Robin Good has starred and which were very financially successful. However, The author's argument seems to be based on flawed reasoning and insufficient evidence. The author fails to consider alternative factors that affect success of a film and that affect profits of a film. Let us now analyze author's reasoning.

Firstly, The author assumes that the past movies of Robin were successful only because of Robin's work in them. The author fails to consider alternative factors that could affect the success of a film. It could be possible that presence of good scripts, of excellent cinematography etc would contribute more to the success of those films than the sole work of Robin Good. If this would be the case, then the money of producers could be more meaningfully contributed to such areas, which affect success of the movie more than robin good, than on just one actor, especially when rest of the team is paid an amount less than amount to be paid to Robin. The author could , in order to strengthen his argument, provide subsequent evidence that would negate alternative factors that affect the success of a film.

Secondly, The author assumes that the profits of movie 3003 after paying Robin several million dollars will be more than the profits if Robin Good is not cast. Even if presence of Robin increases sales and thus revenue, it could be possible that the net amount of profit that the movie generates after deducting several million dollars that was paid to Robin Good is less than the profit that could have been generated without starring Robin. For example, Work of Robin Good could increase revenue till 100 million dollars ,but if 30 million dollars are paid to Robin and 20 to other team members of Movie, Producers have a net profit of 50 million dollars. Whereas if Robin Hood is not hired, The revenue might be 80 million dollars ,but the producers will make a greater profit of 60 million dollars after paying other team members the same amount of 20 million dollars. Therefore, Hiring Robin Good could be detrimental for overall profits of producers. The author could, in order to strengthen his argument, show substantial evidence that would show a net increase in amount of profit made by producers.

Therefore, The author's claim that Producers of movie 3003 will most likely maximize their profits if they are willing to Robin good several million dollars seems seriously flawed and is based on flawed assumptions. The author could provide subsequent evidence that negates alternative factors that affect success of a movie and that shows a net increase in profits of producers after paying Robin several million dollars.

Posted from my mobile device

Good Luck

The argument concludes that in order to maximize profits of the forthcoming movie 3003, the producers must be willing to pay Robin Good several million dollars to star in it. To support this conclusion, the argument claims that Robin has been paid a similar amount in the past to work in several financially successful films. Stated in this way, the argument fails to consider several key factors on the basis of which it could be evaluated. The conclusion of the argument relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hence, the argument has several flaws and in unconvincing.

First, the argument readily assumes that Robin Good was responsible for the financial success of his past films. This statement is a stretch and is not substantiated in any way. For instance, if the past films of Robin Good were part of a franchise with a wealthy production house and a popular ensemble cast, it cannot be inferred that Robin Good alone was responsible for the success of his past films. Further, it is not clear what role he played in his past films. Clearly, if he played the role of an antagonist in his past films, and if the author suggests he play the protagonist in 3003, he may not be positively received by movie critics and the general audience. The argument could have been much clearer if it explicitly stated that he would play a role in 3003 that is similar to his past roles.

Secondly, the argument claims that since Robin's past films in which he was paid several millions of dollars were financially successful, 3003 will also enjoy similar success. This is again a very weak claim as the argument does not demonstrate any correlation between Robin's past films and 3003. To illustrate, the genre of the financially successful movies of Robin is not clear. While Robin might be an accomplished actor, movies dissimilar genres and budgets cannot be expected to have similar profits because of one common actor. If the argument had provided evidence that film 3003 is similar in terms of genres and budgets of his previous films, then the argument would have been a lot more convincing.

Finally, has the author considered advertising the movie to maximize profits? Also, has the author considered the financial success of movies in which Robin Hood was paid an amount far more than any other person involved? Without convincing answers to these questions, one is left with an impression that the claim is more wishful thinking than substantive evidence.

In conclusion, the argument is weak and unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author had mentioned all the relevant factors, such as role of Robin, and genre and budget of 3003 and Robin's past movies. In order to assess the merits of the claim that Robin Good must star in 3003 to maximize profits, it is essential to have full knowledge of all contributing factors. Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.

[reposted from here for evaluation]

Good Luck

AWA Evaluation Request

Dear Sajjad1994 , request you to please grade my AWA attempt .

Thanks in advance !

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.”

Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument.....

My Response :

The argument claims that the forthcoming movie 3003 will be most likely to maximise their profits if they are willing to ay Robin Good several million dollars to star in it even though it is far more than any other person involved with the movie will make. State din this way, the argument manipulates facts and distorts the view of the situation and also leaves out several key factors, on the basis of which it could be evaluated. It also reveals examples of poor reasoning and leap of faith. The conclusion is based on assumptions for which there is no concrete evidence. Therefore the argument is very unconvincing and has several flaws.

To begin with, the argument readily assumes that simply paying Robin Good several millions to star in the movie will help maximise the profits of the movie. This is a stretch since there are several other factors that lead to the success of a movie. For instance, the storyline, the location, the co-stars and the marketing and promotional strategies employed to make the audience excited for the release of movie. Clearly, if paying Robin Good several millions to star in the movie was enough to guarantee maximum profit, all producers would be doing it and there would be no need of other co-actors or an enthralling storyline. In addition to this, the argument fails to consider the possibility of success of the movie against other actors. It is also quite possible that a budding actor, who would charge much less than Robin Good is more suited to the role and the producers failed to reach the right candidates. The argument would have been much clearer if the article explicitly stated that the acting ability of Robin Good is much better than that of his contemporaries and that he is better suited to the lead role in 3003 than any other actor in the industry.

Second, the author of the argument states that the reason behind the financial success of the movies in which Robin Good has starred, is because of the exorbitant amount of money paid to him. This claim is not corroborated as there are several factors that lead to the success. To illustrate,it is quite possible that the reason Robin Good was paid such a high amount was because the movie took a really long time to shoot or that it involved a great deal of dangerous action stunts that he should have been compensated fairly. It is also possible that the time at which those movies were shot and released, Robin Good was the most famous actor. The argument again fails to consider the possibility that the times have changed and there might be more famous actors, who might increase the chances of maximising profits.

Finally, the argument concludes that the forthcoming movie 3003 will be most likely to maximise their profits if they are willing to ay Robin Good several million dollars to star in it even though it is far more than any other person involved with the movie will make. This is difficult to digest as the argument fails to answer questions like what was the genre of those movies ? What caused their success ? Was it the storyline, the direction, the location, the time it was released, the marketing strategies used to promote the movie or only Robin Good? Without answers to these questions, theone is left with the impression that this is more wishful thinking than substantive evidence. Hence, this conclusion has no legs to stand on.

In summary, the argument has many flaws and is not convincing due to the reasons stated above. It could have been strengthened if it had evidence in the form of a market research, suggesting that that the movies in which Robin Good starred were financially successful because of the billions. of dollars paid to Robin Good. To evaluate the merit of any claim, it is imperative to have information on all the relevant factors. In this case, what which time period were RobiGood's successful movies released, what was the actual reason of financial success of his movies, what were the marketing strategies employed to promote the movie, what were the special effects used and also if there were other contributing factors like storyline, co-actors and director . Without this information, the argument is not compelling and remains open to debate.

Good Luck

Hi team,

could you please review my essay? Thanks in advance!

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."

Answer:

The argument claims that the producers of the movie 3003 are most likely to maximise their profits if they pay actor Robin Good several million dollars to star in it. The evidence for this claim is that previous movies that Robin has starred in have been financially successful, with the actor bing paid a similar amount. However, the argument fails to consider several key points which would have provided a much more accurate picture of the claim and also draws links which are more an example of wishful thinking rather than concrete logic. Hence the argument is flawed and unconvincing.

Firstly, the argument readily assumes that because Robin has previously been paid a similar amount for movies that were indeed fincancially successful, it must be the case that this logic will hold true for 3003 as well. This is a flawed link as no consideration is given to the fact wheter all of the movies in which he starred and was paid a large amount were financially successfull. For example, if Robin had been paid this amount for ten movies in which he starred but only three of these were financially successful, then the probability of success in applying this strategy to 3003 would result in a probability that would leave much to be desired. Without an understading of this success rate, it would be foolish to bank the success of the movie 3003 solely on casting Robin Good.

Secondly, the argument assumes that Robin Good will be able to successfully fulfil the role that he will be cast as. We do not know whether he is an action star of character villian, and we do not know what his role would be in 3003. Is it a role that he would struggle with or look out of place as? Is it a departure from the image that audiences currently have of him and what would be the associated risk of this departure in terms of audience dissatisfaction? Without this context, we are again left empty handed as to the validity of Robin's inclusion in the movie providing an accurate estimation for it's financial success.

Finally, there are a number of important pieces of information that the arguments omits, the inclusion of which would have been beneficial in the evalution of the claims. No mention is made on other characteristics of a movie that cause it to be a financial success - only the casting of Robin Good is considered in this instance. We are given no context on the type of movie that 3003 is, what the size of the target demographic is or what the marketing strategy for its release will be. All of these points and more will have a complex effect on the movie's sucess. Without all the major factors taken into consideration, the argument fails to provide a fair assesment of the success of its claims.

In conclusion, the argument is flawed as a result of the issues mentioned previously. The argument fails to consider several key points, such as the success rate of Robin Good's movies, and the role that he would be required to fill. The arguemnt could have been made considerably stronger if it had chosen to consider a holistic number of factors in determining the movie's financial success. Without further exploration of these keys points and inclusion of additional factors, the argument is unsubstantiated and remains open to debate.

Good Luck

My answer:

The author of the column claims that Robin Good is needed to maximize the probability that 3003 achieves its highest profit potential. This conclusion is made on the premise that other films featuring the expensive actor were financially successful, and infers that as such, Robin Good must be a causal factor in cinema success. By itself, this premise is unable to adequately explain the conclusion presented. The columnist's logic relies on faulty assumptions that assume what has happened in the past must inexplicitly be true in the future, and fails to account for the hundreds of other factors that determine the ultimate success or failure of a film, aside from one star actor. In this regard, it is clear that the argument is flawed, and lacks the reasoning expected from a sound claim.

The author cites that past movies Robin has acted in have been financially successful. As the only premise provided as support, determining its invalidity automatically indicates that the argument is not defensible. For starters, this information relies on the continuation fallacy, whereby one believes that what has occurred in the past will continue to occur indefinitely. Much like the rest of society, Hollywood is a fast-paced industry that is constantly changing; for instance, the rise of American-Asian based films over the past two years shows that what is popular today may not be popular tomorrow. Just because Robin has been featured in some successful films does not mean that this is a guaranteed trend.
Furthermore, there is no insight into the consistency of the profit made in Robin's films. While the author mentions that "several" films were financially successful, such a term is vague and uninforming. Robin may have acted in 50 movies in their career so far (similar numbers to Dwayne Johnson or Brad Pitt), but of those 50, only 5-6 (which would be considered as several) may have been highly profitable. In this instance, assuming that spending on Robin is actually more likely to yield negative results. If more information was provided regarding the exhaustive track record of Robin's movies, a clearer trend could be established, but in its current state, it is foolish to assume that Robin's history is stellar. After all, no Hollywood star has only ever been in highly-regarded movies.

In addition, the author assumes that actors are the only factor in deciding the financial success of a movie. In reality, there are countless other factors that are equally or even more important than who is playing the characters. Given that movies are story-driven performances, the script, genre, and plot of the movie are likely to matter much more than who is acting; great actors cannot make up for a poor or uninspiring plot. Additionally, the author is referring to profit maximization, something that is dependent on revenues and costs. The initial budget of the movie matters significantly in determining what is needed to reach specific profit thresholds. Given that blockbusters typically have multi-hundred million budgets, an actor that costs several million dollars is only a marginal aspect of the overall spend. Their individual effect on the bottom line is thus likely to only be marginal as well. As such, Robin's track record with movie success may be more correlation than causation, yet the author immediately takes it as pure correlation (and disregards all other factors). Given this oversight, it is clear that the argument is flawed.

In summary, the generalization of numerous assumptions coupled with an inability to account for other important factors indicates that the argument presented is illogical and invalid. Without more information that better indicates Robin Good has a stronger positive correlation with movie profitability, it is impossible to not consider alternative explanations for the limited historical evidence provided. In its current state, the argument is not well-reasoned, and the producers of 3003 are better off looking elsewhere for recommendations.