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

Please let me know what do you think about my reponse, thanks!

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 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.

Response
The argument claims that the movie producers should hire the actor Robin Good in order to maximize the movie profits, even though Good's pay is much higher than other people involved in the production, because Robin starred in several succusful movies in the past. This argument is weak and is not substantiated, it lacks important data and fails to address additional important factors in the financial success of movies.

First, the argument confuses correlation with causality. By stating that the movie will be successful if Good joins the cast the argument assumes that Good's acting in his previous succuesful films was the reason for those films success. This claim is by no means substantiated and it is highly likely that other more important factors such as script quality and advertisement contributed to those films success, and not Good's acting. This claim can be substantiated by looking at successful films that kept being succuessfull even after losing their main actor, movies such as Need For Speed which lost its main actor in a car accident but kept its success in three more movies in the series.
Another flaw in the logic of the argument is that it does not evaluate the success of all of the movies in which Good participated, and merly points out the few succuessful ones. It can be the case that those few successful movies were only a few out of tens or hundreds of movies in which he participated, making it a minority and weakening the argument. The argument cannot be evaluated without this imporant piece of information.

Second, the argument claims that hiring Robin Good to act in the movie will maximaize the profits of the movie. It implies that many people will come to watch the movie to see Good's performance. This argument however is also flawed as it only address the revenue side of the movie. Profits resault from deducting the costs of the movie from the revenues it generate, but because the argument fails to provide any substantial information about the added revenues and costs it may very well be the case that Hiring Good will hurt the profits of the movie. It might very well be that the associated costs of hiring and catering Good will overcome the extra revenues generated by his performance which is the exact opposite of the arguments claim. An example to this can be found in the movie Dawn of the Priests, where producers hired Vin Diesel, a renoun movie star to play in the movie, but his salary and catering costs were so high that the movie ended up losing money.

To conclude, the argument presented is weak, flawed, and lacks cruicial information in order to be evaluated sufficiently. It examples conflicts, lack of sense, and major leaps of faith in order to come to its conclusion. It can be made much stronger by presenting relevant data and substantiating its claims.