Summer is Coming! Join the Game of Timers Competition to Win Epic Prizes. Registration is Open. Game starts Mon July 1st.

 It is currently 18 Jul 2019, 00:33

### 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

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

## Events & Promotions

Author Message
Intern
Joined: 21 Mar 2015
Posts: 8

### Show Tags

24 Sep 2018, 01:08
argument: 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.

My response: (i miss the proofreading during the time as well )

The Argument concluded that to maximize the profits, Producers should star Robin good, Who has very high fee, in the upcoming movie. The conclusion is supported by the fact that Robin did alot of financially successful movies and assumed the success is because of Robin's presence in the movie. The argument has assumed alot of details which could breaks the argument and few missing pieces of information, if provided, Could help the reasoning strong.

Firstly, the argument suggests that Robin was part of the many successful ventures but it failed to capture the length of his role, or the impact of his performance in most of those ventures. With the current data mention, it could also suggest that keeping Robin's name in the movie is enough for success whether he act in it or not. There is one more angle to this data is, causation i.e. Weather movies were successful because of the Robin acted in those or the other way round. And this reasoning will also be clarified by the number of Robin's movies got flopped or failed to attain financial success. After having clarification on all these information we can make better the argument better.

The other question arises on the argument is, Weather movie need to modify for inclusion of robin's role or Robin fits the requirement of the movie. The answer to these question will impact the profit. Movie might be making the profit now but change in major details might impact the movie adversely. These questions also question the data point mentioned i.e. Weather just the just Robin's name made the success or there are other factors involved.

Finally, I believe the argument is not well constructed and if we have answers to the question asked above could have made it more robust.
examPAL Representative
Joined: 07 Dec 2017
Posts: 1074

### Show Tags

24 Sep 2018, 12:42
1
Pros:
- the basic structure is good: introduction, argument paragraphs, conclusion.
- you present some good arguments, which make the point that the past correlation between Robin Good and successful movies does not necessarily imply causation. good job!

Cons:
- there are a lot of grammatical mistakes and typos: confusing "weather" with "whether", capitalising words in the middle of the sentence, and many more. You need to work on your mechanics.
- One argument is missing, You only present two argument paragraphs - three are recommended.
_________________
Intern
Joined: 21 Mar 2015
Posts: 8

### Show Tags

24 Sep 2018, 20:54
Thank you for the analysis. I had the timing issue and was writing till the last min.

DavidTutorexamPAL wrote:
Pros:
- the basic structure is good: introduction, argument paragraphs, conclusion.
- you present some good arguments, which make the point that the past correlation between Robin Good and successful movies does not necessarily imply causation. good job!

Cons:
- there are a lot of grammatical mistakes and typos: confusing "weather" with "whether", capitalising words in the middle of the sentence, and many more. You need to work on your mechanics.
- One argument is missing, You only present two argument paragraphs - three are recommended.

Display posts from previous: Sort by