Events & Promotions
|
|
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.
Apr 2711:00 AM EDT
-12:00 PM EDT
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors
Apr 2601:30 AM EDT
-02:30 AM EDT
Learn how Keshav, a Chartered Accountant, scored an impressive 705 on GMAT in just 30 days with GMATWhiz's expert guidance. In this video, he shares preparation tips and strategies that worked for him, including the mock, time management, and more.
Apr 2610:00 AM EDT
-11:00 AM EDT
The Target Test Prep course represents a quantum leap forward in GMAT preparation, a radical reinterpretation of the way that students should study. Try before you buy with a 5-day, full-access trial of the course for FREE!
Apr 2808:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Whether you are just beginning your MBA journey or fine-tuning your path to a 700+ score, GMAT Day is designed to give you a competitive edge.
Apr 2912:30 AM EDT
-01:30 AM EDT
Learn how Kamakshi achieved a GMAT 675 with an impressive 96th %ile in Data Insights. Discover the unique methods and exam strategies that helped her excel in DI along with other sections for a balanced and high score.
May 0111:00 AM PDT
-12:00 PM PDT
Free- full-length test + 15 concept videos + 150+ short videos + study plan!
May 0306:30 AM PDT
-08:30 AM PDT
Verbal trouble on GMAT? Fix it NOW! Join Sunita Singhvi for a focused webinar on actionable strategies to boost your Verbal score and take your performance to the next level.
30 Oct 2016, 05:55
Kudos
Bookmarks
Hi all,
In practice I have developed a homegrown AWA template. I usually finish the essay in 20 minutes and relax for 10, so I would like to make sure the quality is decent enough. Kudos for feedback... Thanks in advance!
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 in 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.’
This argument asserts that actor Robin Good should be hired for more than any other participant in the production of a new movie, as he has been paid comparable amounts to appear in financially successful movies in the past. This argument is inherently flawed for two major reasons. First, the author mistakenly assumes that the past is representative of the future. Second, the author's criteria for success is loosely defined, and not necessarily applicable to the film at hand.
Foremost, the author uses the logic that because Robin Good has been paid millions of dollars to star in movies, some of which were very succesful, his incorporation will make the movie 3003 successful as well. This line of reasoning fails on multiple fronts. For example, it is entirely possible that Robin Good was paid millions of dollars to star in three movies that were financially successful, but was also paid millions of dollars to star in twelve movies that were flops. In this example, Robin Good is more closely associated with financially unsuccessful movies than successful ones. Since the author does not provide any concrete context against which one can assess the meaning of "several films," he cannot use that evidence to support his claim. More importantly, even if all of Robin Goods' past movies have been financially successful, there is no guarantee that this will be the case in the forthcoming movie 3003. Perhaps in his past movies Good was accompanied by several other A-list actors that bolstered sales. In the current case, however, since Good would be paid "far more than any other person involved with the movie," it is likely that the remaining actors would not be as popular, and thus would not help boost sales. Thus, the fact that Good's prior movies were financially successful is not enough to support the author's claim.
The argument is also weakened by the author's ambiguous use of the term, "financially successful." The author does refer to the fact that the producers of 3003 are trying to maximize profits, but this goal is not necessarily synonymous with financial success. For example, a large blockbuster movie that grosses $1 billion in the global box office may be considered a financial success regardless of its production costs. In this specific example, if the movie hired several expensive actors that brought the production costs to $999 million, then the movie's financial success is not necessarily the profit-maximizing one. This logic can be extrapolated to the author's assessment of the production of the movie 3003. As a matter of fact, a movie might even be considered financially successful if it was expected to flop but beat expectations. Both examples serve to illustrate how the author's undefined use of the term "financially successful" serves to weaken his argument.
The author's argument, while seemingly well-reasoned, falls short on many accounts. Thus, before using the author's argument as a component in their decision to hire Robin Good, the producers should address the afore-mentioned concerns.
In practice I have developed a homegrown AWA template. I usually finish the essay in 20 minutes and relax for 10, so I would like to make sure the quality is decent enough. Kudos for feedback... Thanks in advance!
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 in 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.’
This argument asserts that actor Robin Good should be hired for more than any other participant in the production of a new movie, as he has been paid comparable amounts to appear in financially successful movies in the past. This argument is inherently flawed for two major reasons. First, the author mistakenly assumes that the past is representative of the future. Second, the author's criteria for success is loosely defined, and not necessarily applicable to the film at hand.
Foremost, the author uses the logic that because Robin Good has been paid millions of dollars to star in movies, some of which were very succesful, his incorporation will make the movie 3003 successful as well. This line of reasoning fails on multiple fronts. For example, it is entirely possible that Robin Good was paid millions of dollars to star in three movies that were financially successful, but was also paid millions of dollars to star in twelve movies that were flops. In this example, Robin Good is more closely associated with financially unsuccessful movies than successful ones. Since the author does not provide any concrete context against which one can assess the meaning of "several films," he cannot use that evidence to support his claim. More importantly, even if all of Robin Goods' past movies have been financially successful, there is no guarantee that this will be the case in the forthcoming movie 3003. Perhaps in his past movies Good was accompanied by several other A-list actors that bolstered sales. In the current case, however, since Good would be paid "far more than any other person involved with the movie," it is likely that the remaining actors would not be as popular, and thus would not help boost sales. Thus, the fact that Good's prior movies were financially successful is not enough to support the author's claim.
The argument is also weakened by the author's ambiguous use of the term, "financially successful." The author does refer to the fact that the producers of 3003 are trying to maximize profits, but this goal is not necessarily synonymous with financial success. For example, a large blockbuster movie that grosses $1 billion in the global box office may be considered a financial success regardless of its production costs. In this specific example, if the movie hired several expensive actors that brought the production costs to $999 million, then the movie's financial success is not necessarily the profit-maximizing one. This logic can be extrapolated to the author's assessment of the production of the movie 3003. As a matter of fact, a movie might even be considered financially successful if it was expected to flop but beat expectations. Both examples serve to illustrate how the author's undefined use of the term "financially successful" serves to weaken his argument.
The author's argument, while seemingly well-reasoned, falls short on many accounts. Thus, before using the author's argument as a component in their decision to hire Robin Good, the producers should address the afore-mentioned concerns.
31 Oct 2016, 03:13
Kudos
Bookmarks
pg19
Overall looks pretty good pg19. You might like to develop the argument for the second point a bit further though. While the term 'financially successful' may not have been defined exactly in the argument, it still does does mean that movies featuring Robin Good have done well financially (whatever the meaning is), and so this may indicate (even if weakly) that the current movie may do well too. To build the argument fully, you have to create doubt on whether the (past) movies' doing well themselves can directly be attributed to Good's performance or may be independent of it.
