Welcome to GMAT Club!Please read the AWA rules in the link below before posting a new topic.
https://gmatclub.com/forum/awa-forum-ru ... 64141.htmlThank youmeenurathore wrote:
hi could somebody review this. would be help.
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.
The argument in the magazine claims that the producers of the forthcoming movie 3003 will maximize their profits by paying several million dollars to Robin, the star of the movie. This argument is inconclusive without data supporting its hypothesis, tends to manipulate facts to present a distorted view of the reality. In sum, the argument could be improved if it supported with relevant data on which its core assumptions depend on.
First, the argument readily assumes that by paying same amount to an actor as was paid to work in successful films will result in profitability. This statement can be incorrect because there could be chances that is overpaid. For example, in previous film may be his role was necessary that is why he was overpaid. It is not necessary that the requirements same for the movie 3003.Clearly solely relying on the past is not a good indicator of how things will be in the future. The argument could have been much clearer if it explicitly stated the the reason for paying such huge amount while making this claim.
Secondly, the argument claims that movie can make profits only by paying huge amount to an actor. This is again a very week and unsupported claim as the argument does not really take into account the other indicators which are equally important for the success of the film. For example, Script and direction are equally important as actor. so unless, the argument has a clear picture and reasons supporting the above, it would have been more clearer tp convince its goal.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above mentioned reasoning and is therefore not convincing. It would be considerably stronger if the author clearly mentioned the reason of paying such a huge amount. Instead of simply copying the previous producers. IN order to assess the merits of a decision, it is necessary to have full knowledge of the contributing factors. Without the above mentioned information, the argument remains indefensible and open to debate.