Hi y'all, I would love to hear any and all feedback.
Thanks in advance for your support.
"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 author of the magazine column attempts to argue that paying Robin Good a substantial salary to star in the upcoming movie 3003 is the most likely mechanism to ensure the film’s profitability. However, the author does not substantiate their claim, and thus the argument is unconvincing. In order to enhance the argument, the author should address two key areas of concern: whether Robin Good is capable of bringing in larger revenues for the film and whether the cost of Robin Good is appropriate for 3003’s production.
The author’s primary appeal to the audience through a case example, stating that other films who paid Robin Good substantially to star in their movies became “very financially successful”. However, many details are left unmentioned. Are these other films similar style to 3003? How long ago were these films made? Without details provided to justify the case as pertinent to 3003, there is the possibility that Robin Good does not have good fit. For example, if Robin Good was a romantic-comedy star in the 1970s, then would he readily appeal to a market for a modern day detective drama? This would hinder Good’s ability to drive revenue for 3003 if they were mismatched.
In addition, what does “very financially successful” mean? If these previous films were much larger than 3003, then the overall production value would support the cost of Robin Good. 3003, on the other hand, may risk expending the vast majority of their budget on one actor’s salary. Indeed, this calls into question whether Robin Good’s performance, or mere appearance, can truly deliver returns at scale to 3003. It is possible that return on investment from Robin Good could be less, due to these high costs, than from another lesser known actor, whose salary is smaller but is able to give a stellar performance.
Overall, maximization of profitability requires optimizing the difference between increasing revenues and decreasing costs. If Robin Good is unable to bring in large sales to 3003 because he is a poor fit, or if Robin Good’s costs are too large for the scale of 3003’s operation, then profitability may not be maximized in comparison to other options for actors. The author can improve their arguments by addressing these issues and showing other options 3003 can take to map out the opportunity costs.
Strong 3/Weak 4. It's been a while since I've done an AWA (COVID-19 surprisingly threw my GMAT schedule off for a month...) Struggled to properly frame my criticisms, thought of too many better phrasings only after I had finished. Oh well, practice makes perfect!