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 2512:30 AM EDT
-01:30 AM EDT
At one point, she believed GMAT wasn’t for her. After scoring 595, self-doubt crept in and she questioned her potential. But instead of quitting, she made the right strategic changes. The result? A remarkable comeback to 695. Check out how Saakshi did it.
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 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 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.
May 0111:00 AM PDT
-12:00 PM PDT
Free- full-length test + 15 concept videos + 150+ short videos + study plan!
amilstein
Joined: 22 Jan 2019
Last visit: 02 Oct 2023
Posts: 73
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 722
Location: United States
Schools: Tuck '25 (D) Yale '25 (WL) Stern '25 (A$$$$) Kellogg '25 (M$$$) HBS '25 (D) Stanford '25 (D) Sloan '25 (D)
GMAT 1: 650 Q39 V40
GMAT 2: 690 Q42 V42
GMAT 3: 700 Q47 V40
GMAT 4: 730 Q47 V44
GPA: 3.97
Schools: Tuck '25 (D) Yale '25 (WL) Stern '25 (A$$$$) Kellogg '25 (M$$$) HBS '25 (D) Stanford '25 (D) Sloan '25 (D)
GMAT 4: 730 Q47 V44
Posts: 73
Kudos:
22
17 Jul 2022, 12:30
Kudos
Bookmarks
Question:
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.”
Response:
The author of the column mentions that, were the producers of the upcoming movie 3003 to pay Robin Good several million dollars to star in their movie, the movie's profits would be maximized. This is quite a leap based on the evidence cited. The author makes a connection between the pay a particular actor has gotten from previous work that has been successful and the profits of another film without mentioning the actor's specific genre of work, the budget of the film, or the roles the actor has had previously. These details make the argument flawed as discussed below.
First, It is not mentioned what the budget of the film is and how much of it is available. This is information that the author may or may not have access to but it is crucial to predict how this hiring decision may affect the film's profitability. It is possible that the budget can only accomodate Robin's salary by cutting on other production costs which can cause the quality of the film to diminish. If this were to happen we can't know if Robin's appearance alone can make up for the lack of quality and that can cause the film to lose money instead.
Second, the author does not mention the film's genre or the genre's in which Robin has appeared before. It is possible that Robin is a great actor but has only been featured in action films while 3003 is a romantic comedy. This would mean that Robin is not a good fit for that particular genre so the certainty that this would maximize profits and justify the multi-million dollar salary is lower than if another actor with more experience in the genre and a lower asking salary was hired instead.
Third, the author asks for Robin to be cast as the star of the film while only mentioning that they have worked in other financially succesful films. It may be the case that 3003 is an independent film with lower budget than major studio productions and that Robin is usually a supporting actor in these major productions. This could indicate that while Robin has been paid several millions to appear in film's, those films are also paying the same amount or more to other actors in leading roles and that might mean that the producers of 3003 cannot be sure that Robin will be able to fit the leading role in their film causing the reception of the movie to plummet and its profits with it.
To conclude, the author makes an assertion that is not entirely without merit and tries to alude that since this actor has been paid a certain amount in other films that have been successful, their presence alone will make another film successful and so it is justifiable to pay millions of dollars for their work. It may as well be the case that Robin is a perfect fit for the film because it's in the same genre as their previous work, Robin is a known leading actor in that genre, and the producers could give out that salary without significantly reducing production quality. But without knowing all of these details the conclusion stands on assumptions without base and incomplete information. Therefore, the argument is flawed.
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.”
Response:
The author of the column mentions that, were the producers of the upcoming movie 3003 to pay Robin Good several million dollars to star in their movie, the movie's profits would be maximized. This is quite a leap based on the evidence cited. The author makes a connection between the pay a particular actor has gotten from previous work that has been successful and the profits of another film without mentioning the actor's specific genre of work, the budget of the film, or the roles the actor has had previously. These details make the argument flawed as discussed below.
First, It is not mentioned what the budget of the film is and how much of it is available. This is information that the author may or may not have access to but it is crucial to predict how this hiring decision may affect the film's profitability. It is possible that the budget can only accomodate Robin's salary by cutting on other production costs which can cause the quality of the film to diminish. If this were to happen we can't know if Robin's appearance alone can make up for the lack of quality and that can cause the film to lose money instead.
Second, the author does not mention the film's genre or the genre's in which Robin has appeared before. It is possible that Robin is a great actor but has only been featured in action films while 3003 is a romantic comedy. This would mean that Robin is not a good fit for that particular genre so the certainty that this would maximize profits and justify the multi-million dollar salary is lower than if another actor with more experience in the genre and a lower asking salary was hired instead.
Third, the author asks for Robin to be cast as the star of the film while only mentioning that they have worked in other financially succesful films. It may be the case that 3003 is an independent film with lower budget than major studio productions and that Robin is usually a supporting actor in these major productions. This could indicate that while Robin has been paid several millions to appear in film's, those films are also paying the same amount or more to other actors in leading roles and that might mean that the producers of 3003 cannot be sure that Robin will be able to fit the leading role in their film causing the reception of the movie to plummet and its profits with it.
To conclude, the author makes an assertion that is not entirely without merit and tries to alude that since this actor has been paid a certain amount in other films that have been successful, their presence alone will make another film successful and so it is justifiable to pay millions of dollars for their work. It may as well be the case that Robin is a perfect fit for the film because it's in the same genre as their previous work, Robin is a known leading actor in that genre, and the producers could give out that salary without significantly reducing production quality. But without knowing all of these details the conclusion stands on assumptions without base and incomplete information. Therefore, the argument is flawed.
18 Jul 2022, 12:26
Kudos
Bookmarks
AWA Score: 4.5 out of 6
Coherence and connectivity: 3/5
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: 4.5/5
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!
Coherence and connectivity: 3/5
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: 4.5/5
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!
Good Luck
amilstein
21 Jul 2022, 07:32
Kudos
Bookmarks
The aforementioned column from the popular entertainment magazine concludes that producers of the forthcoming movie 3003 will be mostly likely to maximize their profits if they pay Robin Good several million dollars to star in it, based on Robin Good's record of starring in financially successful films. The argument at first glance may seem to be logical. However, upon further examination of the argument and its underlying structure, a number of flaws become evident.
Firstly, the argument fails to establish any causal relationship between paying Robin Good several million dollars to star in the film and the film's financial success. The argument does not provide essential information such as Robin Good's acting skills, the genre of movies he has worked in, budget of the previous films he starred in, thus not aiding the reader to understand the reason for starring Robin Good in the forthcoming movie. Based on the structure of the argument, it seems that the mere presence of Robin Good is sufficient for the film's success. The argument fails to justify whether, it was only Robin Good who can be credited with the financial success of his previous movies.
Secondly, the argument assumes that film's financial success is equivalent to having their profits maximized. It is possible that in the previous films that Robin Good starred in earned huge revenues but only made marginal profits, due to the high budget incurred during production. Further, the argument fails to provide a clear meaning of a financially successful film.
Thirdly, the argument fails to consider various other factors that affect the film's success, such as storyline, cinematography, music etcetera. The argument also fails to consider that the presence of other actors and actresses also significantly affect the movie's popularity. It is possible that Robin Good may not be suitable for the role in the forthcoming movie. The argument also fails to address the number of movies starring Robin Good which did not do well financially.
Had the argument managed to address the aforementioned concerns, both its persuasive ability and apparent legitimacy would have been greatly reinforced. However, the argument in its current form is simply a hasty generalization filled with overreaching assumptions and deficiencies in information.
Firstly, the argument fails to establish any causal relationship between paying Robin Good several million dollars to star in the film and the film's financial success. The argument does not provide essential information such as Robin Good's acting skills, the genre of movies he has worked in, budget of the previous films he starred in, thus not aiding the reader to understand the reason for starring Robin Good in the forthcoming movie. Based on the structure of the argument, it seems that the mere presence of Robin Good is sufficient for the film's success. The argument fails to justify whether, it was only Robin Good who can be credited with the financial success of his previous movies.
Secondly, the argument assumes that film's financial success is equivalent to having their profits maximized. It is possible that in the previous films that Robin Good starred in earned huge revenues but only made marginal profits, due to the high budget incurred during production. Further, the argument fails to provide a clear meaning of a financially successful film.
Thirdly, the argument fails to consider various other factors that affect the film's success, such as storyline, cinematography, music etcetera. The argument also fails to consider that the presence of other actors and actresses also significantly affect the movie's popularity. It is possible that Robin Good may not be suitable for the role in the forthcoming movie. The argument also fails to address the number of movies starring Robin Good which did not do well financially.
Had the argument managed to address the aforementioned concerns, both its persuasive ability and apparent legitimacy would have been greatly reinforced. However, the argument in its current form is simply a hasty generalization filled with overreaching assumptions and deficiencies in information.
