GMAT Essays (AWA)

Hello,

Can someone rate my essay'

Is not perfect but is hard for me to pull off a great essay in just 30 minutes..

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 in - 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.

Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. In your discussion be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example. You may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counter examples might weaken the conclusion. You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate this conclusion.

The entertainment magazine claims that producers of the movie 3003 would maximize their profits if they hire Robin Good pay him several millions to star in it since he had starred in successful movies in the past. This conclusion is based in a flawed line of reasoning and fails to take into account important factors that could affect the financial success of the movie.

First of all, the financial success of a movie is determined not only by the leading actor hired for the movie, but also by several other factors such as the marketing campaign, the team of actors hired as a group, the technology used, the story being told, the special effects, etc. The profitability of the movie will be damages if the producers focus on the hiring of Robin Good without taking into account these other factors. Moreover, since most projects operate on a budget, it is possible that the allocations of resources toward the actor's salary will harm other aspects of the production. Let's not forget that an enterprise is profitable if its costs are lower than its revenues and paying more for hiring Mr. Good raises the costs of the project.
Second, the writer of the column incorrectly assumes that Mr. Good's performance in the past will predict his performance in future movies. Let's take the case of Vin Diesel, h appeared in the very successful movie "Fast and Furious" and then accepted a role in the not so successful film "Bullet Proof Nanny". This is a clear example against the argument that past conduct should predict future conduct.

Finally, remuneration of an actors is often correlated with the riskiness of the role or the difficulty of playing a character. Mr. Good may have been paid a considerable amount of money in previous jobs due to the danger of that particular role or to some other reason. The point is that this movie may not require complicated performances and hence high remunerations.

In conclusion, there are more factors in the equation than the ones considered by the magazine to reach their conclusion. It has been stated that paying a certain actor a considerable amount of money does not necessarily translates in financial success of 3003. An alternative for this would be to negotiate with Mr. Good his payment, reducing it or tying it to the financial success of the film.