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
07 Feb 2015, 13:01
Kudos
Bookmarks
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 . . . etc.
The argument that the producers of the forthcoming movie 3033 will be most likely to maximize their profits if they are willing to pay Robin Good several million dollars to star in it is flawed in two ways. Not only does the argument assume that Robin is the only factor that can drive the movie successful, the argument also assumes that the amount paid to him/her must be similar to the other movies to ensure the movie financially successful.
Firstly, the argument assumes that Robin Good is the only factor that can lead to a movie that maximizes profit. The author mentions compensating Robin good several million dollars, but gives no real data on financials for the movie. The author is also assuming that Robin is the only actor or actress that can give them the most bang for their buck without considering any others that may cost much less. Other factors that should be considered are script writers and directors for the movie. Without those, there cannot be a successful movie even with Robin Good.
Secondly, the argument assumes that because Robin Good was paid a similar amount of several million dollars in other films, paying the same amount to him/her would ensure the film financial success. The author is wrongly correlating the amount paid to Robin and the financial success of the film. In film production, there are many other costs that need to be considered to determine if the film is financially successful or not. For example, if Robin Good has been starring in $100 million dollar budget films and has been compensated $10 million per film. That would be very different than starring in a film with a budget of $15 million where his or her compensation would account for $10 of the $15 million.
The author can strengthen his or her argument through the following ways. First, the author must provide evidence that statistically Robin Good’s utilization rate is the best amongst his or her peers. Having a high utilization rate would show that money spent on Robin is spent in the best way possible. The author must also provide empirical evidence that directors and scriptwriters can work well with Robin’s acting. Second, the author must provide research evidence on Robin’s other successful films and see if they can be compared to the film they are planning to produce. If Robin’s other films have similar budgets and attributes, which would show that paying Robin a similar amount could potentially equate to the same success.
Overall, the author’s argument has two main flaws that must be addressed before proceeding further. The author must look at how Robin Good’s salary as a whole fits in the movie’s budget and if the amount paid to him/her makes sense for the movie the author’s looking to produce. If the 2 flaws can’t be clarified, the author could be potentially producing a movie that may be financially un-successful.
“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 . . . etc.
The argument that the producers of the forthcoming movie 3033 will be most likely to maximize their profits if they are willing to pay Robin Good several million dollars to star in it is flawed in two ways. Not only does the argument assume that Robin is the only factor that can drive the movie successful, the argument also assumes that the amount paid to him/her must be similar to the other movies to ensure the movie financially successful.
Firstly, the argument assumes that Robin Good is the only factor that can lead to a movie that maximizes profit. The author mentions compensating Robin good several million dollars, but gives no real data on financials for the movie. The author is also assuming that Robin is the only actor or actress that can give them the most bang for their buck without considering any others that may cost much less. Other factors that should be considered are script writers and directors for the movie. Without those, there cannot be a successful movie even with Robin Good.
Secondly, the argument assumes that because Robin Good was paid a similar amount of several million dollars in other films, paying the same amount to him/her would ensure the film financial success. The author is wrongly correlating the amount paid to Robin and the financial success of the film. In film production, there are many other costs that need to be considered to determine if the film is financially successful or not. For example, if Robin Good has been starring in $100 million dollar budget films and has been compensated $10 million per film. That would be very different than starring in a film with a budget of $15 million where his or her compensation would account for $10 of the $15 million.
The author can strengthen his or her argument through the following ways. First, the author must provide evidence that statistically Robin Good’s utilization rate is the best amongst his or her peers. Having a high utilization rate would show that money spent on Robin is spent in the best way possible. The author must also provide empirical evidence that directors and scriptwriters can work well with Robin’s acting. Second, the author must provide research evidence on Robin’s other successful films and see if they can be compared to the film they are planning to produce. If Robin’s other films have similar budgets and attributes, which would show that paying Robin a similar amount could potentially equate to the same success.
Overall, the author’s argument has two main flaws that must be addressed before proceeding further. The author must look at how Robin Good’s salary as a whole fits in the movie’s budget and if the amount paid to him/her makes sense for the movie the author’s looking to produce. If the 2 flaws can’t be clarified, the author could be potentially producing a movie that may be financially un-successful.
Moderators:
188 posts
