I am currently using the 60 Day Beat the GMAT Study Guide, and was instructed to write an analysis of argument essay and submit it to this forum upon completion. If someone would kindly rate my analysis and give me any tips and criticisms, it would be appreciated. Thanks in advance!
The following appeared as part of a column in a popular entertainment magazine:
"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."
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
The author of the article proposes the premise that profits are likely to be maximized if the producers are willing to pay the actor Robin Good millions of dollars, a substantially high amount, to feature in the film "3003". This premise is flawed and illogical in several ways and is unlikely to achieve its intended effect.
For one, the author erroneously assumes that since Robin Good was paid similar amounts in the past while starring in many successful films, he should continue to be paid at such a figure. This is illogical as it assumes that his past success and history is indicative of his current status as an actor. Perhaps his popularity and star power is fading and he should no longer command such high amounts of money. Therefore, including him in the movie for a substantially high figure will not necessarily lead to success.
Furthermore, the author of the article only mentions the times when Robin Good was paid a similar figure to work in films that were financially successful. However, the author fails to mention the times, if any, when Robin Good was paid millions to star in movies that were not financially successful. Perhaps, he's been in more unsuccessful movies than successful films. Consequently, his worth as an actor should include his movies that were successes as well as those that were not.
Lastly, the author states that Robin has been paid millions of dollars to work in several films, which were a success, believing that if Robin Good were to star in "3003", it would also be a financial success. However, the author fails to account for several factors. It may be that Robin Good's films would've been successful with or without him, and his involvement had nothing to do with their success. In addition, it may be that Robin Good may be very selective in choosing his roles carefully, to maximize his success as an actor. It could be that Robin Good isn't suited for the role in "3003".
The basis of the author's claims are unsound and rely on various assumptions, fallacies, and conclusions. To further maximize profits, the producers should consider spending the money they would allocate to Robin Good on advertising and promotion, or perhaps hiring an actor who commands less money but has been in more or similar amounts of successful films.
The following appeared as part of a column in a popular entertainment magazine:
"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."
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
The author of the article proposes the premise that profits are likely to be maximized if the producers are willing to pay the actor Robin Good millions of dollars, a substantially high amount, to feature in the film "3003". This premise is flawed and illogical in several ways and is unlikely to achieve its intended effect.
For one, the author erroneously assumes that since Robin Good was paid similar amounts in the past while starring in many successful films, he should continue to be paid at such a figure. This is illogical as it assumes that his past success and history is indicative of his current status as an actor. Perhaps his popularity and star power is fading and he should no longer command such high amounts of money. Therefore, including him in the movie for a substantially high figure will not necessarily lead to success.
Furthermore, the author of the article only mentions the times when Robin Good was paid a similar figure to work in films that were financially successful. However, the author fails to mention the times, if any, when Robin Good was paid millions to star in movies that were not financially successful. Perhaps, he's been in more unsuccessful movies than successful films. Consequently, his worth as an actor should include his movies that were successes as well as those that were not.
Lastly, the author states that Robin has been paid millions of dollars to work in several films, which were a success, believing that if Robin Good were to star in "3003", it would also be a financial success. However, the author fails to account for several factors. It may be that Robin Good's films would've been successful with or without him, and his involvement had nothing to do with their success. In addition, it may be that Robin Good may be very selective in choosing his roles carefully, to maximize his success as an actor. It could be that Robin Good isn't suited for the role in "3003".
The basis of the author's claims are unsound and rely on various assumptions, fallacies, and conclusions. To further maximize profits, the producers should consider spending the money they would allocate to Robin Good on advertising and promotion, or perhaps hiring an actor who commands less money but has been in more or similar amounts of successful films.
