Hi,
Could you please evaluate my essay. I have scheduled my GMAT exam for the 25th of May (Monday). I've written about 5 essays till now but I am not able to assess my progress and areas for improvement. I made a few spelling errors but have retained it in the essay posted so that you can see them as well.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
'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.'
________________________________________________________________________________________
The argument claims that the producers of the forthcoming movie 3003 will most likely maximize their profits if they are willing to pay Robin Good several million dollars to star in it, since he was paid a similar amount to work in his previous films that ended up being financially successful. This claim was made despite the fact that such an amount would be far more than what would be paid to any other person involved with the movie. The author clearly manipulates facts and relies on numerous unwarranted assumptions, thereby conveying a distorted view of the situation. The argument also reveals examples of leap of faith and poor reasoning, rendering the overall argument fallacious and unsubstantiated.
First, the argument readily assumes that since Robin Good's previous films, in which he was paid several million dollars, were successful, paying him a comparable sum for this movie would maximize the producers' profits. Clearly this statement reveals an enormous leap of faith because it assumes that all other factors that impact the financial success of the movie would remain constant and the mere presence of Robin Good in the movie would be the critical success factor. It draws a correlation between the actor's presence and the movie's financial success without demonstrating a clear cause and effect relationship between the two. For example, the argument does not take into account the genre of the movie, its script, its direction, its cinematography and ultimately, the audience perception to the movie. As a result, this assumption renders the argument weak and and the author could have been much more convincing if he or she explicitly stated the aforementioned factors.
Second, the argument claims that paying Robin Good several million dollars to star in the movie will maximize the producers' profits despite this amount being far more than what any other person involved with the movie would make. This statement is a stretch as it does not examine the implications of this payscale imbalance further. To illustrate, there is a likelihood of other actors in the movie demanding similar sums, substantially increasing the cost of production and thereby lowering the profits made by the movie, all other factors remaining constant. Further key actors may decide to back out of the movie if their demands were not met thereby jeapordizing the ultimate performance of the film. This reveals examples of poor reasoning and the argument would have been a lot more convincing if such implications were further explained before making the claim.
Lastly, is there a possibility of convincing Robin Good to act in the movie at a lower price because of other factors such as the movie's cast, its script, its director etc.? Are there other actors apart from Robin Good, who are of similar quality, and who can play the part at a much lower salary? Without answers to these questions, one is left with the impression that the argument is backed up by wishful thinking rather than by substantive evidence.
In conclusion, the argument remains fallacious and unconvincing due to the aforementioned factors. The argument could have been much more compelling if it were explicitly stated that other actors would be willing to star in the movie at the same rate even if Robin Good earned several million dollars and that the movie being made can be reasonably expected to perfrom similar to previously successful Robin Good movies due to factors other than the mere presence of Robin Good. When one is asked to decide on a particular course of action, it is imperative to have full knowledge of all contributing factors. In this case there is a clear lack of substantive evidence to back up the claims as illustrated above. Without these factors being addressed, the argument continues to be unsubstantiated and open to debate.
Could you please evaluate my essay. I have scheduled my GMAT exam for the 25th of May (Monday). I've written about 5 essays till now but I am not able to assess my progress and areas for improvement. I made a few spelling errors but have retained it in the essay posted so that you can see them as well.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
'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.'
________________________________________________________________________________________
The argument claims that the producers of the forthcoming movie 3003 will most likely maximize their profits if they are willing to pay Robin Good several million dollars to star in it, since he was paid a similar amount to work in his previous films that ended up being financially successful. This claim was made despite the fact that such an amount would be far more than what would be paid to any other person involved with the movie. The author clearly manipulates facts and relies on numerous unwarranted assumptions, thereby conveying a distorted view of the situation. The argument also reveals examples of leap of faith and poor reasoning, rendering the overall argument fallacious and unsubstantiated.
First, the argument readily assumes that since Robin Good's previous films, in which he was paid several million dollars, were successful, paying him a comparable sum for this movie would maximize the producers' profits. Clearly this statement reveals an enormous leap of faith because it assumes that all other factors that impact the financial success of the movie would remain constant and the mere presence of Robin Good in the movie would be the critical success factor. It draws a correlation between the actor's presence and the movie's financial success without demonstrating a clear cause and effect relationship between the two. For example, the argument does not take into account the genre of the movie, its script, its direction, its cinematography and ultimately, the audience perception to the movie. As a result, this assumption renders the argument weak and and the author could have been much more convincing if he or she explicitly stated the aforementioned factors.
Second, the argument claims that paying Robin Good several million dollars to star in the movie will maximize the producers' profits despite this amount being far more than what any other person involved with the movie would make. This statement is a stretch as it does not examine the implications of this payscale imbalance further. To illustrate, there is a likelihood of other actors in the movie demanding similar sums, substantially increasing the cost of production and thereby lowering the profits made by the movie, all other factors remaining constant. Further key actors may decide to back out of the movie if their demands were not met thereby jeapordizing the ultimate performance of the film. This reveals examples of poor reasoning and the argument would have been a lot more convincing if such implications were further explained before making the claim.
Lastly, is there a possibility of convincing Robin Good to act in the movie at a lower price because of other factors such as the movie's cast, its script, its director etc.? Are there other actors apart from Robin Good, who are of similar quality, and who can play the part at a much lower salary? Without answers to these questions, one is left with the impression that the argument is backed up by wishful thinking rather than by substantive evidence.
In conclusion, the argument remains fallacious and unconvincing due to the aforementioned factors. The argument could have been much more compelling if it were explicitly stated that other actors would be willing to star in the movie at the same rate even if Robin Good earned several million dollars and that the movie being made can be reasonably expected to perfrom similar to previously successful Robin Good movies due to factors other than the mere presence of Robin Good. When one is asked to decide on a particular course of action, it is imperative to have full knowledge of all contributing factors. In this case there is a clear lack of substantive evidence to back up the claims as illustrated above. Without these factors being addressed, the argument continues to be unsubstantiated and open to debate.
