"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."
The author concludes that the producers should pay Robin Good a very high salary if they want the movie to be successful. The author supports his decision by arguing that the actor received a substantial amount of money in previous movies that were all very successful. The author has conveniently assumed that movie 3003 will be highly profitable if Robin acts in the movie and received an above average compensation package based on the fact that the same applied in the past. However, the argument is full of gaps since it presents fragmentary evidence. Neither are the premises convincing nor is the conclusion compelling.
First of all, the argument takes subjective factors into account. The author claims that given the success of previous films in which Robin acted, movie 3003 is also assumed to generate substantial profits. However, whether the new movie will be a success is a mere speculation because one cannot base the performance of past films on newly launched movies. The successful launch of a movie is dependent on various factors such as the marketing campaign, the size of the target group that the movie attracts, the attractiveness of the remaining actors, etc.
Secondly, the argument is flawed because it lacks sufficient evidence that shows that paying an actor several million dollars automatically results in a maximization of profits. The author mentioned that ‘several’ movies in which Robin acted and received a high compensation were financially successful. However, insufficient data was provided what the exact number or percentage of successful movies was. The given statement could mean that only 10% of Robin’s movies were profitable and the remaining ones were a complete failure.
In conclusion, the argument is the result of a speculation in which the author has comfortably assumed a considerable amount of data. Had the author addressed the above mentioned items, the argument would have been far more convincing. More evidence relating to the link between the amount of money that Robin received and the success of the movies would have significantly strengthened the argument.
The author concludes that the producers should pay Robin Good a very high salary if they want the movie to be successful. The author supports his decision by arguing that the actor received a substantial amount of money in previous movies that were all very successful. The author has conveniently assumed that movie 3003 will be highly profitable if Robin acts in the movie and received an above average compensation package based on the fact that the same applied in the past. However, the argument is full of gaps since it presents fragmentary evidence. Neither are the premises convincing nor is the conclusion compelling.
First of all, the argument takes subjective factors into account. The author claims that given the success of previous films in which Robin acted, movie 3003 is also assumed to generate substantial profits. However, whether the new movie will be a success is a mere speculation because one cannot base the performance of past films on newly launched movies. The successful launch of a movie is dependent on various factors such as the marketing campaign, the size of the target group that the movie attracts, the attractiveness of the remaining actors, etc.
Secondly, the argument is flawed because it lacks sufficient evidence that shows that paying an actor several million dollars automatically results in a maximization of profits. The author mentioned that ‘several’ movies in which Robin acted and received a high compensation were financially successful. However, insufficient data was provided what the exact number or percentage of successful movies was. The given statement could mean that only 10% of Robin’s movies were profitable and the remaining ones were a complete failure.
In conclusion, the argument is the result of a speculation in which the author has comfortably assumed a considerable amount of data. Had the author addressed the above mentioned items, the argument would have been far more convincing. More evidence relating to the link between the amount of money that Robin received and the success of the movies would have significantly strengthened the argument.
