|
|
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.
24 Jul 2021, 08:08
Kudos
Bookmarks
The Prompt: “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.”
The argument states that in order for the producers of the upcoming movie 3003 to maximize profits, they must be willing to pay the actor Robin Good several million dollars to star in it. The reason for this argument is that other films starring Robin Good have also earned him a similar amount and have been successful financially. However, the producers make unsubstantiated arguments and an overall weak argument.
The producers' argument has a key issue in that it assumes that several of Robin Good's previous financially successful films were successful because he starred in them, rather than that he happened to star in pictures that would have been just as profitable without him. The producers, somewhat naively, fail to recognise that Robin Good's previous films may have been exceptional for a variety of reasons, including good direction, a captivating storyline, a very likeable cast, or special effects. However, one way for the producers to back up their claim is to see if people watch movies solely because Robin Good is in them.
Secondly, even if several of Robin Good's previous films were financially successful, the producers provide no information regarding how many of Robin Good's previous films were not successful, yet they anticipate to maximise earnings from 3003 by hiring Robin Good. For example, if Robin Good has starred in 15 films in the last five years, three of which have been commercially successful, he is unlikely to be the ideal choice for the role, nor is it worth the budget to hire him. Even if Robin Good is a hugely successful person, it cannot be argued that he is the driving force behind a film's success. Anne Hathaway, for example, despite being one of America's most successful actors, has a decent number of bad films amid her many successful ones. The producers might bolster their case by presenting additional information about Robin Good's track record: if every single one of Robin Good's films was a financial success, their case would be far more convincing.
Several films in which Robin Good acted were highly financially successful, despite his enormous costs, according to the argument. This is yet another weak and unsubstantiated claim, as the reasoning implies, without justification, that the background situation remained unchanged. Just though Robin Good has made a fortune for his former employers in the past does not indicate he will continue to do so in the future. It could be that new and younger performers are more popular than Robin Good and people prefer to see them in movies, or Robin Good's performance simply isn't as good as it once was. The argument would have been far more convincing if the evidence showed that nothing has changed in terms of Robin Good's popularity and acting.
Finally, assuming Robin Good is the reason for the success of many of his films and has a flawless track record, it is illogical to claim that hiring him will maximise the film's earnings. The producers ignore the fact that any other highly accomplished actor could easily replace Robin Good for a fraction of the expense. Furthermore, if casting another actor lowers production expenses significantly, it might be worthwhile because the film could provide a significantly higher return on investment, even if overall ticket sales are down 10-20%. Is Robin Good the only actor who can help the film make the most money? Is there anything else that can achieve the same result? Without compelling answers to these questions, one is left with the feeling that the claim is based on wishful thinking rather than fact.
It is necessary to have complete information of all contributing aspects in order to appraise the merits of a certain decision. In this scenario, whether the producers could find alternative ways to optimise their revenues and whether Robin Good is still a high-quality and popular performer who can draw audiences to the movies is yet to be known. In conclusion, the producers' reasoning is neither compelling nor logical. In reaching their conclusion, the producers make a number of unjustified assumptions, rendering their argument invalid in its current form.
The argument states that in order for the producers of the upcoming movie 3003 to maximize profits, they must be willing to pay the actor Robin Good several million dollars to star in it. The reason for this argument is that other films starring Robin Good have also earned him a similar amount and have been successful financially. However, the producers make unsubstantiated arguments and an overall weak argument.
The producers' argument has a key issue in that it assumes that several of Robin Good's previous financially successful films were successful because he starred in them, rather than that he happened to star in pictures that would have been just as profitable without him. The producers, somewhat naively, fail to recognise that Robin Good's previous films may have been exceptional for a variety of reasons, including good direction, a captivating storyline, a very likeable cast, or special effects. However, one way for the producers to back up their claim is to see if people watch movies solely because Robin Good is in them.
Secondly, even if several of Robin Good's previous films were financially successful, the producers provide no information regarding how many of Robin Good's previous films were not successful, yet they anticipate to maximise earnings from 3003 by hiring Robin Good. For example, if Robin Good has starred in 15 films in the last five years, three of which have been commercially successful, he is unlikely to be the ideal choice for the role, nor is it worth the budget to hire him. Even if Robin Good is a hugely successful person, it cannot be argued that he is the driving force behind a film's success. Anne Hathaway, for example, despite being one of America's most successful actors, has a decent number of bad films amid her many successful ones. The producers might bolster their case by presenting additional information about Robin Good's track record: if every single one of Robin Good's films was a financial success, their case would be far more convincing.
Several films in which Robin Good acted were highly financially successful, despite his enormous costs, according to the argument. This is yet another weak and unsubstantiated claim, as the reasoning implies, without justification, that the background situation remained unchanged. Just though Robin Good has made a fortune for his former employers in the past does not indicate he will continue to do so in the future. It could be that new and younger performers are more popular than Robin Good and people prefer to see them in movies, or Robin Good's performance simply isn't as good as it once was. The argument would have been far more convincing if the evidence showed that nothing has changed in terms of Robin Good's popularity and acting.
Finally, assuming Robin Good is the reason for the success of many of his films and has a flawless track record, it is illogical to claim that hiring him will maximise the film's earnings. The producers ignore the fact that any other highly accomplished actor could easily replace Robin Good for a fraction of the expense. Furthermore, if casting another actor lowers production expenses significantly, it might be worthwhile because the film could provide a significantly higher return on investment, even if overall ticket sales are down 10-20%. Is Robin Good the only actor who can help the film make the most money? Is there anything else that can achieve the same result? Without compelling answers to these questions, one is left with the feeling that the claim is based on wishful thinking rather than fact.
It is necessary to have complete information of all contributing aspects in order to appraise the merits of a certain decision. In this scenario, whether the producers could find alternative ways to optimise their revenues and whether Robin Good is still a high-quality and popular performer who can draw audiences to the movies is yet to be known. In conclusion, the producers' reasoning is neither compelling nor logical. In reaching their conclusion, the producers make a number of unjustified assumptions, rendering their argument invalid in its current form.
bansalgaurav
Joined: 26 Mar 2021
Last visit: 20 Nov 2021
Posts: 112
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 36
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
Schools: IIMB EPGP'23
GMAT 1: 640 Q50 V25
26 Jul 2021, 00:40
Kudos
Bookmarks
Hey Sneh, I just loved it.. Though I could see some grammatical errors, but would not point them, as I am not an expert in it.
Regarding your fourth paragraph "Several films in which Robin Good acted were highly.... ", I felt as if the argument is repetitive and has been covered in the previous paragraphs.
To add on, I felt as if the essay was a bit lengthy.
Rest all is good.
I admire the gamut of examples and brevity of the language you covered (all within the scope).
I would request to rehearse for AWA together if you are ok.
PS: I am not so good at AWA. It's easy to comment than done.
I am reachable at <[email protected]>
Regarding your fourth paragraph "Several films in which Robin Good acted were highly.... ", I felt as if the argument is repetitive and has been covered in the previous paragraphs.
To add on, I felt as if the essay was a bit lengthy.
Rest all is good.
I admire the gamut of examples and brevity of the language you covered (all within the scope).
I would request to rehearse for AWA together if you are ok.
PS: I am not so good at AWA. It's easy to comment than done.
I am reachable at <[email protected]>
27 Jul 2021, 11:02
Kudos
Bookmarks
Welcome to GMAT Club!
AWA Score: 5 out of 6!
I have used a GMATAWA auto-grader to evaluate your essay.
Coherence and connectivity: 5/5
This rating corresponds to the flow of ideas and expressions from one paragraph to another. The effective use of connectives and coherence of assertive language in arguing for/against the argument is analyzed. This is deemed as one of the most important parameters.
Paragraph structure and formation: 3.5/5
The structure and division of the attempt into appropriate paragraphs are evaluated. To score well on this parameter, it is important to organize the attempt into paragraphs. Preferable to follow the convention of leaving a line blank at the end of each paragraph, to make the software aware of the structure of the essay.
Vocabulary and word expression: 4/5
This parameter rates the submitted essay on the range of relevant vocabulary possessed by the candidate basis the word and expression usage. There are no extra- points for bombastic word usage. Simple is the best form of suave!
I have used a GMATAWA auto-grader to evaluate your essay.
Coherence and connectivity: 5/5
This rating corresponds to the flow of ideas and expressions from one paragraph to another. The effective use of connectives and coherence of assertive language in arguing for/against the argument is analyzed. This is deemed as one of the most important parameters.
Paragraph structure and formation: 3.5/5
The structure and division of the attempt into appropriate paragraphs are evaluated. To score well on this parameter, it is important to organize the attempt into paragraphs. Preferable to follow the convention of leaving a line blank at the end of each paragraph, to make the software aware of the structure of the essay.
Vocabulary and word expression: 4/5
This parameter rates the submitted essay on the range of relevant vocabulary possessed by the candidate basis the word and expression usage. There are no extra- points for bombastic word usage. Simple is the best form of suave!
PS: Follow AWA forum rules when you post your next one in the forum, read the rules here: https://gmatclub.com/forum/awa-forum-ru ... 64141.html
Good Luck
snehshah
