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
30 May 2020, 16:39
Kudos
Bookmarks
Taking the GMAT in the next week and would appreciate any and all input!
Argument: “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 in 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.’”
The author of the column in the popular entertainment magazine argues that a new movie titled 3003 will be able to increase its profits if the film’s management group were to pay Robin Good several millions of dollars to star in this new film. Despite the fact that Robin Good’s payout amount for this film will vastly exceed that of the other actors in the film, the author of the column believes that Robin Good will improve the profitability of the film, presumably by increasing the potential revenue the film may fetch in theaters and post-theater releases. However, this argument is fundamentally flawed because it makes a number of faulty assumptions, does not consider a number of additional factors that may negatively influence film profitability if Good were to star in the film, and relies on a poorly constructed historical comparison to make its point. If the author were to justify his or her various assumptions, demonstrate consideration of additional key factors that affect profitability and revenue, and would limit their reliance on historical examples, the argument could become stronger.
The author makes two key assumptions that limit the validity of the argument advanced in the column. The first assumption made follows as such: starring Good in the film 3003 will increase the film’s revenue. It may very well be true that Good may hurt the film’s revenue prospects. For example, if many consider Good to be an unpopular actor, then many may decide to not view the film. Similarly, if Good primarily stars in dramas, and 3003 is a comedy, then viewers may see the choice of the star actor as peculiar and decide to not view the film. If the author were to have provided further support as to why they believe Good would increase the revenue of the film, then the argument would be better supported. Additionally, the author makes a second key assumption: the author assumes that the costs associated with starring Good will not negatively affect the net profitability of the film. To be more explicit, even if Good were to increase the revenue of the film by $500M, if Good’s expensive payout check were to result in a net increase in $600M in costs, then profitability would be negatively impacted and result in a decrease of $100M in profits. Absent precise, quantitative estimations of revenue increases and costs, and assessment of profitability is impossible.
Moreover, the author fails to consider a number of other factors that may influence the profitability of the film. For example, the author notes that if Good were to be paid several million dollars to star in 3003, his paycheck would be “far more” dearer to the film’s budget than those of the other actors’ paychecks would. If the other actors were to learn about this discrepancy, they may be less willing to perform on stage, thus hurting the film’s revenue potential due to poor acting. Similarly, if Good were to star in the film, the high expenses associated with his acting may result in budget cuts elsewhere, such as in production, animation, CGI, support, or marketing. A decrease in investments in these other areas may substantially hurt the film’s potential to fetch high revenues, thus resulting in lower profitability. By not considering these factors, the author of the column fails to account for many other key factors that may negatively affect the film’s profitability, thus weakening the author’s conclusion.
Lastly, in the last sentence of the excerpt provided from the author’s column, the author draws a historical comparison to prior films that Good has starred in, but mistakenly assumes that the financial success of these other films indicates that hiring Good will improve 3003’s profitability. There are a few key reasons as to why this comparison is not appropriate. Firstly, the author conflates general financial success of a film with Good’s inclusion in the film’s cast. These films may have been financially successful due to other reasons that may have nothing to do with Good, such as the presence of other actors, a solid plot line, or robust marketing efforts. Additionally, the author does not appropriately diligence what it means for a film to be financially successful, much less assess whether those other films even turned a profit. As a counterfactual, if one were to define financial success merely based off revenue and not costs, Good’s other films could be considered financially successful but unprofitable. In that case, this historical example would certainly hurt the author’s central claim. Therefore, the author’s reliance on a poorly constructed historical example does little to advance their argument.
Thus, the author of the column piece on the movie 3003 fails to advance a well-supported, logically sound argument. The inclusion of a large number of core assumptions, the lack of consideration of the impact of various conflating factors, the complete absence of any quantitative information, and the reliance on poorly constructed historical analogies leave this argument open to many criticisms. If the argument were to include key financial information, explain its many assumptions, and more fully substantiate its various claims, then the author’s point would become stronger.
Argument: “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 in 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.’”
The author of the column in the popular entertainment magazine argues that a new movie titled 3003 will be able to increase its profits if the film’s management group were to pay Robin Good several millions of dollars to star in this new film. Despite the fact that Robin Good’s payout amount for this film will vastly exceed that of the other actors in the film, the author of the column believes that Robin Good will improve the profitability of the film, presumably by increasing the potential revenue the film may fetch in theaters and post-theater releases. However, this argument is fundamentally flawed because it makes a number of faulty assumptions, does not consider a number of additional factors that may negatively influence film profitability if Good were to star in the film, and relies on a poorly constructed historical comparison to make its point. If the author were to justify his or her various assumptions, demonstrate consideration of additional key factors that affect profitability and revenue, and would limit their reliance on historical examples, the argument could become stronger.
The author makes two key assumptions that limit the validity of the argument advanced in the column. The first assumption made follows as such: starring Good in the film 3003 will increase the film’s revenue. It may very well be true that Good may hurt the film’s revenue prospects. For example, if many consider Good to be an unpopular actor, then many may decide to not view the film. Similarly, if Good primarily stars in dramas, and 3003 is a comedy, then viewers may see the choice of the star actor as peculiar and decide to not view the film. If the author were to have provided further support as to why they believe Good would increase the revenue of the film, then the argument would be better supported. Additionally, the author makes a second key assumption: the author assumes that the costs associated with starring Good will not negatively affect the net profitability of the film. To be more explicit, even if Good were to increase the revenue of the film by $500M, if Good’s expensive payout check were to result in a net increase in $600M in costs, then profitability would be negatively impacted and result in a decrease of $100M in profits. Absent precise, quantitative estimations of revenue increases and costs, and assessment of profitability is impossible.
Moreover, the author fails to consider a number of other factors that may influence the profitability of the film. For example, the author notes that if Good were to be paid several million dollars to star in 3003, his paycheck would be “far more” dearer to the film’s budget than those of the other actors’ paychecks would. If the other actors were to learn about this discrepancy, they may be less willing to perform on stage, thus hurting the film’s revenue potential due to poor acting. Similarly, if Good were to star in the film, the high expenses associated with his acting may result in budget cuts elsewhere, such as in production, animation, CGI, support, or marketing. A decrease in investments in these other areas may substantially hurt the film’s potential to fetch high revenues, thus resulting in lower profitability. By not considering these factors, the author of the column fails to account for many other key factors that may negatively affect the film’s profitability, thus weakening the author’s conclusion.
Lastly, in the last sentence of the excerpt provided from the author’s column, the author draws a historical comparison to prior films that Good has starred in, but mistakenly assumes that the financial success of these other films indicates that hiring Good will improve 3003’s profitability. There are a few key reasons as to why this comparison is not appropriate. Firstly, the author conflates general financial success of a film with Good’s inclusion in the film’s cast. These films may have been financially successful due to other reasons that may have nothing to do with Good, such as the presence of other actors, a solid plot line, or robust marketing efforts. Additionally, the author does not appropriately diligence what it means for a film to be financially successful, much less assess whether those other films even turned a profit. As a counterfactual, if one were to define financial success merely based off revenue and not costs, Good’s other films could be considered financially successful but unprofitable. In that case, this historical example would certainly hurt the author’s central claim. Therefore, the author’s reliance on a poorly constructed historical example does little to advance their argument.
Thus, the author of the column piece on the movie 3003 fails to advance a well-supported, logically sound argument. The inclusion of a large number of core assumptions, the lack of consideration of the impact of various conflating factors, the complete absence of any quantitative information, and the reliance on poorly constructed historical analogies leave this argument open to many criticisms. If the argument were to include key financial information, explain its many assumptions, and more fully substantiate its various claims, then the author’s point would become stronger.
Moderators:
189 posts
