"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 the 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."
In the precedent statement, the author claims that the producer of movie 3003 should pay several million dollars to Robin Good to start in their movie in order to maximize their profits. Though the author's claim may have merit, the author present a poorly reasoned argument based on several questionable premises and assumptions, and based solely on the evidence provided by the author; we cannot accept his claim as valid.
The primary issue with the author's reasoning is the unsubstantiated premises. The author fails to provide significant details on the type of movies that were financially successful, what percent of the movies in which Robin Hood acted so far have been financially successful, what were the reasons to pay Robin Hood such a high fee and what were the terms and conditions of the payment. It is possible that only certain type of movies (say for example action movies) done by Robin Hood were successful and if movie 3003 in not of that type (say it is drama) then the chances are that the producers of the movie may not be able to maximize the profits. Furthermore, it is possible that Robin Hood was paid such a high fee for some of the movies he did in the past because of certain other reasons. For example, Robin Hood may have done all his risky stunts by himself and hence charged more money. Furthermore, the terms and conditions of the producers of the movies in which Robin Hood acted are not clear. It is possible that the producers paid certain amount of the fee after the movie became successful. The author's premises, the basis of his argument, lack legitimate evidentiary support and render his argument invalid.
In addition, the author makes assumptions that remain unproven. The author assumes that the future movies of Robin Hood will be financially successful based on the financial success of some of his movies in the past. In addition, the author assumes that Robin Hood was the sole reason for the financial success of some of his movies in the past. It is possible that there were other reasons for the success such as good script or direction. Furthermore, the author fails to explain why a financially successful film cannot be made without Robin Hood and also that paying such a huge amount to Robin Hood would not impact their profit margin. The author weakens his argument by making assumption and failing to provide explication of the link between paying high to an actor and financial success of the movie.
Though there are several issues with the author's reasoning, we cannot say that the entire argument is without base. The author can support his argument by providing details on the type of movies of Robin Hood that were financially successful in the past, details on whether Robin Hood was the main reason behind the movies financial success, what were the reasons for such a high fee payment to Robin Hood in his past movies and that the profit margins would not suffer even after paying him such a huge amount. Though the author's has several issues with the reasoning at present, with research and clarification, he can strengthen his argument.
In sum, the author's illogical argument is based on unsupported premises and unsubstantiated assumptions that render his conclusion invalid. If the author really wants to change readers mind on the issues, he needs to largely restructure his argument, fix flaws in his logic, clearly explicate assumptions and provide evidentiary support. Without these, the author's poorly reasoned argument will convince very few people.
In the precedent statement, the author claims that the producer of movie 3003 should pay several million dollars to Robin Good to start in their movie in order to maximize their profits. Though the author's claim may have merit, the author present a poorly reasoned argument based on several questionable premises and assumptions, and based solely on the evidence provided by the author; we cannot accept his claim as valid.
The primary issue with the author's reasoning is the unsubstantiated premises. The author fails to provide significant details on the type of movies that were financially successful, what percent of the movies in which Robin Hood acted so far have been financially successful, what were the reasons to pay Robin Hood such a high fee and what were the terms and conditions of the payment. It is possible that only certain type of movies (say for example action movies) done by Robin Hood were successful and if movie 3003 in not of that type (say it is drama) then the chances are that the producers of the movie may not be able to maximize the profits. Furthermore, it is possible that Robin Hood was paid such a high fee for some of the movies he did in the past because of certain other reasons. For example, Robin Hood may have done all his risky stunts by himself and hence charged more money. Furthermore, the terms and conditions of the producers of the movies in which Robin Hood acted are not clear. It is possible that the producers paid certain amount of the fee after the movie became successful. The author's premises, the basis of his argument, lack legitimate evidentiary support and render his argument invalid.
In addition, the author makes assumptions that remain unproven. The author assumes that the future movies of Robin Hood will be financially successful based on the financial success of some of his movies in the past. In addition, the author assumes that Robin Hood was the sole reason for the financial success of some of his movies in the past. It is possible that there were other reasons for the success such as good script or direction. Furthermore, the author fails to explain why a financially successful film cannot be made without Robin Hood and also that paying such a huge amount to Robin Hood would not impact their profit margin. The author weakens his argument by making assumption and failing to provide explication of the link between paying high to an actor and financial success of the movie.
Though there are several issues with the author's reasoning, we cannot say that the entire argument is without base. The author can support his argument by providing details on the type of movies of Robin Hood that were financially successful in the past, details on whether Robin Hood was the main reason behind the movies financial success, what were the reasons for such a high fee payment to Robin Hood in his past movies and that the profit margins would not suffer even after paying him such a huge amount. Though the author's has several issues with the reasoning at present, with research and clarification, he can strengthen his argument.
In sum, the author's illogical argument is based on unsupported premises and unsubstantiated assumptions that render his conclusion invalid. If the author really wants to change readers mind on the issues, he needs to largely restructure his argument, fix flaws in his logic, clearly explicate assumptions and provide evidentiary support. Without these, the author's poorly reasoned argument will convince very few people.
