|
|
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.
15 Jun 2020, 09:53
Kudos
Bookmarks
Please rate my AWA: I randomly picked one from the OG, and this is my first attempt at it. Where I'm struggling is how to go about expanding on the flaws and assumptions I've mentioned, but also in trying to keep my thoughts and topics all organized.
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.”
My response:
The argument presented above is heavily flawed for numerous reasons. Primarily, the argument assumes that the film "3003" is the same as or very similar to his previous films. This renders the above argument, in which the upcoming film "3003" will also be successful with the star Robin Good, invalid.
The argument fails to mention the subject matter of those films, nor the time of year, that those very successful films were released. For example, summer blockbusters that involve a superhero or are a sequel in a big franchise exponentially outperform those indie films that are released during the non-holiday months. Additionally, the public's preferences and interests greatly change over time. What worked in the past may not work in the present. The argument would be greatly strengthened by including clarification as to the genre and timing of release of both "3003," compared to some of Good's previous works.
Additionally, the argument assumes that Robin Good is the sole reason that his previous films were so successful. This is flawed, because the success of his previous films could very well have been the result of the other cast and crew members. Also, even if it was Good himself that resulted in the success of those films, there is no guarantee that his performance in "3003" will receive critical praise.
Lastly, the argument above also utilizes vague language. It does not specify what constitutes as a financially successful film. This could be strengthened by clarifying how much of a certain amount of box office revenue above the film's budget determines "financial successfulness."
Because the argument above fails to provide a great deal of clarification and leads to a number of unwarranted assumptions, it fails to make a convincing case that the film "3003," starring Robin Good, will result in the same financial success of Good's previous work.
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.”
My response:
The argument presented above is heavily flawed for numerous reasons. Primarily, the argument assumes that the film "3003" is the same as or very similar to his previous films. This renders the above argument, in which the upcoming film "3003" will also be successful with the star Robin Good, invalid.
The argument fails to mention the subject matter of those films, nor the time of year, that those very successful films were released. For example, summer blockbusters that involve a superhero or are a sequel in a big franchise exponentially outperform those indie films that are released during the non-holiday months. Additionally, the public's preferences and interests greatly change over time. What worked in the past may not work in the present. The argument would be greatly strengthened by including clarification as to the genre and timing of release of both "3003," compared to some of Good's previous works.
Additionally, the argument assumes that Robin Good is the sole reason that his previous films were so successful. This is flawed, because the success of his previous films could very well have been the result of the other cast and crew members. Also, even if it was Good himself that resulted in the success of those films, there is no guarantee that his performance in "3003" will receive critical praise.
Lastly, the argument above also utilizes vague language. It does not specify what constitutes as a financially successful film. This could be strengthened by clarifying how much of a certain amount of box office revenue above the film's budget determines "financial successfulness."
Because the argument above fails to provide a great deal of clarification and leads to a number of unwarranted assumptions, it fails to make a convincing case that the film "3003," starring Robin Good, will result in the same financial success of Good's previous work.
Moderator:
