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
26 Jul 2020, 12:43
Kudos
Bookmarks
Hi Folks,
Please review my AWA given below. Any suggestion/feedback would be of immense help. Thanks in advance!
Question:
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.
Answer:
The author claims that in order to maximise the profit from forthcoming movie 3003, the producers of the movie should pay Robin Good several million dollars to act in it even though this amount is far more than any other person involved in the movie will make. This conclusion is based on the evidence that Robin has been paid a similar amount for his past movies that turned out to be financially very successful. This argument, however, relies on claims for which sufficient evidence has not been provided. Hence, the argument seems unconvincing and has several flaws.
Firstly, the author has not provided any evidence on the similarity of the movie currently being made and Robin Good's past movies. The movies of different genre mostly involve different acting styles and different budget as per the production requirements. For example, the budget or acting style required by a romantic movie shot entirely in a city will be very different from an action-thriller shot at multiples countries around the world. Moreover, there are certain actors who prefer certain types of genre and their performance is best suited for that type of movie only. If Robin Good's all the past movie were romantic movies, we don't have anything to justify whether his huge payment for 3003 (assuming it is an action movie) will ensure the success of the movie.
Additionally, a movie's success also depends majorly on director and other production staff. Even if the actor is really good, a movie can fail if production staff is not up to the standards required. For example, 3003 is likely to fail in the market if it lacks direction or cinematography, even if 3003 has same genre as Robin Good's past movies.
Finally, a movie's success also depends a lot on external market situation and might have nothing to do with the actor acting in it. For example, if the country where movie will be released is going through a tough time financially, the likelihood of that country's population spending big bucks on movies will be significantly less. That way, irrespective of how good the actor is or how much is his payment, the financial success of the movie cannot be gauranteed.
To conclude, author could have made his argument clearer and stronger by providing information stated above as an evidence. The argument, in its current state, is unconvincing and open to debate.
Please review my AWA given below. Any suggestion/feedback would be of immense help. Thanks in advance!
Question:
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.
Answer:
The author claims that in order to maximise the profit from forthcoming movie 3003, the producers of the movie should pay Robin Good several million dollars to act in it even though this amount is far more than any other person involved in the movie will make. This conclusion is based on the evidence that Robin has been paid a similar amount for his past movies that turned out to be financially very successful. This argument, however, relies on claims for which sufficient evidence has not been provided. Hence, the argument seems unconvincing and has several flaws.
Firstly, the author has not provided any evidence on the similarity of the movie currently being made and Robin Good's past movies. The movies of different genre mostly involve different acting styles and different budget as per the production requirements. For example, the budget or acting style required by a romantic movie shot entirely in a city will be very different from an action-thriller shot at multiples countries around the world. Moreover, there are certain actors who prefer certain types of genre and their performance is best suited for that type of movie only. If Robin Good's all the past movie were romantic movies, we don't have anything to justify whether his huge payment for 3003 (assuming it is an action movie) will ensure the success of the movie.
Additionally, a movie's success also depends majorly on director and other production staff. Even if the actor is really good, a movie can fail if production staff is not up to the standards required. For example, 3003 is likely to fail in the market if it lacks direction or cinematography, even if 3003 has same genre as Robin Good's past movies.
Finally, a movie's success also depends a lot on external market situation and might have nothing to do with the actor acting in it. For example, if the country where movie will be released is going through a tough time financially, the likelihood of that country's population spending big bucks on movies will be significantly less. That way, irrespective of how good the actor is or how much is his payment, the financial success of the movie cannot be gauranteed.
To conclude, author could have made his argument clearer and stronger by providing information stated above as an evidence. The argument, in its current state, is unconvincing and open to debate.
Moderators:
188 posts
