Critical Reasoning

I received a PM asking me to weigh in on this one.

This is a tough one (700+). Careful about the order in which you analyze what's going on.

Execs use 1st wknd to figure out how to invest more. Decisions best made after 1st wknd (eg, # of screens, mrktng).
THUS: to max. profits, studios should release ALL films on small # screens w/ limited ads.

What assump used to justify conclusion? (This is key - you are trying to justify this specific conclusion - nothing else.)

In simpler terms: this author claims that a particular plan will maximize profits. What MUST he assume when making this claim?

I'll address A, D, and E, as those answers seem to be the debated ones above.

A) If I think that max. profits = small # of screens and limited ads, then I also think that any other way of doing this is NOT the way to maximize profits. So, I would believe that a large # of screens won't ever maximize profits, and I would also believe that having lots of advertising won't ever maximize profits. (Kind of bad assumptions, huh?) And that's basically what this choice says - spending a lot upfront is never going to be better than the way I claim is the best way to maximize profits: with limited spending upfront.

D) This may be true. But does it answer the question? The specific question is what the author assumes MUST be true in drawing the conclusion that his plan is the best way to maximize profits. If the author assumes that you can't predict anything via marketing investments, then how can he conclude that a certain way of making those investments will lead to maximum profits? Rather, he'd have to conclude that there is no "best" plan for maximizing profits via marketing investments.

E) This may also be true. The particular issue at hand is what this author believes MUST be true in order to validate his plan to maximize profits. We have to think from the point of view of the author's plan. Could it be the case that the author's plan results in a strong opening weekend and strong results for weeks after? Sure. Could it be the case that the author's plan results in a strong opening weekend, but weaker results over the length of the film? Sure. What about a weaker opening weekend with stronger results over the length of the film? Any of these could work - the author's plan doesn't say WHEN the most profits will come. Just that this plan will result in the maximum profits over the entire length of the film.

And note, by the way, that the author thinks his plan is the way things always should be done to maximize profits, no matter what. Even if E is true, that doesn't lead us to the conclusion that we must use the author's plan for any movie. Go look at A again. A does support that extreme thinking, because A says that if you make a larger marketing investment, you'll never make more than if you start small, as the author's plan advocates.

Notice something interesting by the way. Both D and E sound like they could reasonably be true in the real world. Answer A doesn't sound like it could reasonably be true. Yet A is the right answer. That's because this author doesn't make a very good argument; his argument is seriously flawed. But because he draws an extreme conclusion, some of his assumptions (including the correct answer here) demonstrate similarly extreme (and flawed) thinking.