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

Prompt:
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.”

My Essay

This argument is flawed for numerous reasons. Primarily, it erroneously assumes that because other movies from a certain actor were successful in the past, this movie will also be successful. A classic Apples and Oranges fallacy. The argument fails to mention key factors that also affect a movie's success and does not present any convincing evidence that suggests that the past movies can be considered an accurate proxy for the current movie. It also uses vague language that leaves us questioning the scope of its claims.

First, the argument illogically claims that the profitability of the movie relies on the presence of a specific actor. It fails to provide any context that would justify the need for this specific actor to play the role in its movie. Furthermore, it unfoundedly assumes that because some of the actor's movies in the past were successful, this one must also be successful. Had the argument provided evidence that other key factors that affect a movie's success, such as production budget, plot, other cast members, and advertising budget, were competitive, then maybe it would have been more convincing. Nonetheless, the argument would still falsely rely on precedent to evaluate current success.

Second, the argument fails to provide any evidence to suggest that the actor is still as successful and relevant today as he was in the past. Actors fall in and out of the limelight all the time and it is not because an actor was very successful and highly paid in the past that his popularity and relevance - which could but not solely account for - will make the movie popular and profitable. What if the actor had been recently caught up in a bad news story or been publicly held accountable for some bad behavior? This type of information about his current standing with the public is an important factor to consider continuity of his popularity.

Finally, the argument presents multiple facts with vague language that makes us doubt the scope of its claims. For example, the argument states that the movies to which that actor contributed were financially successful, but does not provide further details. Had the argument defined the scope of its success with numbers or facts, it would have been more convincing.

In conclusion, the argument is flawed since it makes several unfounded assumptions and fails to present convincing evidence that a certain movie would maximize profitability by paying a certain actor several million dollars.