The Producers of the forthcoming movie 3003 will be most likely to max

The Producers of the forthcoming movie 3003 will be most likely to maximise 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. Is the argument properly reasoned.


The argument claims that the producers of the forthcoming movie 3003 will be most likely to maximise their profits if they are willing to pay Robin Good,who has starred in some very financially successful movies, a good amount to star in it.
Stated in this way, the argument conveys a distorted view of the situation claiming that the financial success of the movie only depends on the stardom of a particular artist. In addition to that, it displays poor reasoning by considering the past performance of other movies starring Robin Good , for the probability of the financial success of the movie 3003.
The argument clearly fails to mention several other key factors such as the other star cast of previously successful movies , storyline and common people’s reviews of them, which could have been decisive factors for evaluating the argument. Hence the argument fails to convince .

First , the argument readily assumes that Robin Good was solely responsible for the financial success of the movies which he starred in. The statement is presented without considering other factors such as other star cast, storyline, time of release of those movies etc. Clearly the argument fails to establish any link between the financial success of the movies and the starring of Robin Good in them. The argument could have been much clearer if it explicitly stated that the other movies became successful only because of the brilliant performance of Robi Good or any other such factors.

Second, the argument claims that producers will be more likely to maximise their profits by paying several millions to Robin Good. This argument is flawed as it discusses profits without even a slightest mention about net earnings. Also it does not take the producers’ overall budget into consideration as paying several million to one artist would leave less amount of money to be spent on other things such as other star cast, directors, marketing of the movie etc. In fact it is not at all clear how the producers are going to manage the finances. If the argument had provided the information about budgets and marketing strategies, The argument would have been a lot more convincing.

Finally, The argument leaves one without convincing answers to such questions as on what basis the producers assume that starring Robin Good can alone bring the financial success of the movie ? Also even after considering their assumption to be true, the question that How are the producers going to manage all the finances with several millions being paid to only one star, is still left unanswered.

In Conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. It could have been more clear if the author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts and information. In order to assess the merits of a certain decision,it is essential to have full knowledge of all considerable factors. In this particular case, the factors deciding the financial success of the successful movies as well as details about the producer’s plan.
Without such information, The argument remains unconvincing and open to debate.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above-mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts.

In order to assess the merits of a certain situation/decision, it is essential to have full knowledge of all contributing factors. In this particular case....
Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.