CR Guide - Studio executives carefully examine how...

[ll2318]

Studio executives carefully examine how a film performs on its opening weekend in order to determine whether - and how - to invest more in that film. Many decisions, such as increasing the number of screens that show the film and expanding the marketing campaign, are best made after reaction ca be gathered from audience who actually purchased tickets. Therefore, to maximize returns on their marketing investments, studios should initially release all their films on a small number of screens and with a limited advertising campaign.
The plan to maximize returns by initially releasing films on only a small number of screens and limiting advertising depends on which of the following assumptions?

A) Large marketing investments made before the opening weekend never eventually yield greater profits than small initial marketing investments.

B) New advertising technique such as web-based viral marketing, haven’t substantially reduced the average marketing cost for films.

C) A film’s prior performance in noncommercial settings, such as festivals, is not well correlated with how the general public tends to react to than film.

D) Across the movie industry, marketing investments do not influence the eventual financial returns of films in predictable way.

E) How a film performs during its opening weekend is a strong indicator of the film’s financial performance over its lifetime.


The solutions say "A" however I argue that "E" is correct. While I agree that A does eliminate an alternate cause, the use of the word "never" is too strong. It may be possible that large marketing investments sometime yield larger profit margins but that studios should still release all their films to maximize profit.

I don't understand why E is incorrect. The argument is based on the fact that studios can use results from opening weekend to make marketing decisions. Thus, the assumption that opening weekend results are strong indicators of the film's overall performance seems to be valid...

[esledge]

For some reason, I found it helpful to re-order the points, reading the argument this way:
To maximize returns on marketing $, studios should initially release films on few screens and with limited advertising $

because

Many decisions (e.g. increasing both # of screens that show the film and marketing $) are best made after reaction can be gathered from audience members who actually purchased tickets.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This helped me put E in perspective, because E focuses specifically on the link between a film's financial performance during opening weekend and afterward.

However, the argument itself focuses on when decisions are best made. For example, the argument allows the possibility that a film is test-released on few screens and makes only a mediocre financial return. But the information gathered by that release could allow the studio to adjust its campaign, thereby making more money over the remaining life of the movie.

Thus, it is not necessary to assume that the opening weekend is a strong predictor of later financial performance by a film.

[ashish-mohan]

Emily,

You mention: "the information gathered by that release could allow the studio to adjust its campaign, thereby making more money over the remaining life of the movie".

However, if we negate E (How a flim performs during opening weekend is not a strong indicator of film's financial performance over its lifetime), then the information gathered during opening weekend gives no idea to the sudios about the Financial potential of the film. Hence, the argument falls apart. So, I think E should be the answer.

[Ben Ku]

However, if we negate E (How a flim performs during opening weekend is not a strong indicator of film's financial performance over its lifetime), then the information gathered during opening weekend gives no idea to the sudios about the Financial potential of the film. Hence, the argument falls apart. So, I think E should be the answer.

While (E) is tempting, and one can make the argument that it is helpful for the argument, the argument does NOT necessarily fall apart if it's not true. The reason is because the CONCLUSION is saying that the limited opening plan will produce the maximum profits. While opening weekend performance is an indicator of its lifetime performance, it does not tell us anything about how a LIMITED opening weekend performance will fare. (A) correctly (especially with the strong language, "never") eliminates the possibility that a LARGE opening weekend will not be as profitable as a LIMITED opening weekend.

[ashish-mohan]

Oh boy..it doesn't get much tougher than this...Ben, I think you meant to say...while (E) is tempting....(A) correctly eliminates...

[Ben Ku]

Thanks, Ashish for the catch! That was exactly what I intended to say. After looking at answer choices all day, they sometimes get mixed up ...

[amrinder.bahl]

A talks abt the investments made BEFORE the OPENING WEEKEND
and justifies it by saying that lagre investments made before never match up with small investments ,and hence the conclusion is endorsed

E -a film's performance in its first week can be gud as well as bad.If the performance is bad ,then how can investors think abt maximising their returns.

Studio executives carefully examine how a film performs on its opening weekend in order to determine whether - and how - to invest more in that film. Many decisions, such as increasing the number of screens that show the film and expanding the marketing campaign, are best made after reaction ca be gathered from audience who actually purchased tickets. Therefore, to maximize returns on their marketing investments, studios should initially release all their films on a small number of screens and with a limited advertising campaign.
The plan to maximize returns by initially releasing films on only a small number of screens and limiting advertising depends on which of the following assumptions?

A) Large marketing investments made before the opening weekend never eventually yield greater profits than small initial marketing investments.

B) New advertising technique such as web-based viral marketing, haven’t substantially reduced the average marketing cost for films.

C) A film’s prior performance in noncommercial settings, such as festivals, is not well correlated with how the general public tends to react to than film.

D) Across the movie industry, marketing investments do not influence the eventual financial returns of films in predictable way.

E) How a film performs during its opening weekend is a strong indicator of the film’s financial performance over its lifetime.


The solutions say "A" however I argue that "E" is correct. While I agree that A does eliminate an alternate cause, the use of the word "never" is too strong. It may be possible that large marketing investments sometime yield larger profit margins but that studios should still release all their films to maximize profit.

I don't understand why E is incorrect. The argument is based on the fact that studios can use results from opening weekend to make marketing decisions. Thus, the assumption that opening weekend results are strong indicators of the film's overall performance seems to be valid...

[esledge]

All really well-considered comments!

I was just re-reading my own and it occured to me that there might be a better way to think about it.

The series of events is:
(1) Studio executives carefully examine how a film performs on its opening weekend.
(2) Based on (1), they determine whether - and how - to invest more in that film.
(3) Decisions at step (2), such as increasing the number of screens and expanding the marketing campaign, are best made after reaction can be gathered from paying audience.
Conclusion: To maximize returns on marketing investments, studios should initially release all their films on a small number of screens and with a limited advertising campaign.

This is our Assumption Type #3, "Eliminate Alternate Paths," often characterized by strong/superlative language in the conclusion.

The necessary assumption will RULE OUT some (any!) other way that the Studios could maximize their returns on marketing investments. (A) does so.

Also, the term "financial performance" in (E) is a little fuzzy. Is that total revenue? Revenue per ticket? Return on marketing investment? Hmmm.

[dhlee922]

So initially i was stuck between A and D. I eventually chose D b/c A has the word Never, which is extreme, and in a previous chapter, i read that extreme words can be in the answer if the same extreme word is in the argument, i believe that is stated in chapter 3.

I do understand how the LEN works for answer choice A, but you could also argue that LEN works for choice D as well.

Could someone provide a little further explanation why A should be chosen over D?

thank you

[tim]

there has been plenty of discussion about why A is correct; you have provided no reason to choose D. so it seems we have every reason to choose A and no reason to choose D. i think the "rule" you refer to is not really a rule. can you provide us with a page number so we can look at the book and make a correction if necessary?

[dhlee922]

i clearly stated that LEN works for choice D works as well. all i'm asking for is the reasoning behind A versus D. no other reply has mentioned that, therefore that is why i posed the question

i will post the exact page number later when i have the book in front of me

also, since this is a find the assumption question, D is an assumption that i think would work to answer this question, so it's kind of implied by me asking in the first place. but in the first sentence of the paragraph, if studio execs look at first weekend numbers, then you can assume marketing investments do not influence eventual financial returns. also the fact that the last sentence even says limited advertising campaigns, to me means that marketing investments do not influence eventual financial returns of films in predictable way. A is too extreme, while D is not as extreme

[jnelson0612]

i clearly stated that LEN works for choice D works as well. all i'm asking for is the reasoning behind A versus D. no other reply has mentioned that, therefore that is why i posed the question

i will post the exact page number later when i have the book in front of me

also, since this is a find the assumption question, D is an assumption that i think would work to answer this question, so it's kind of implied by me asking in the first place. but in the first sentence of the paragraph, if studio execs look at first weekend numbers, then you can assume marketing investments do not influence eventual financial returns. also the fact that the last sentence even says limited advertising campaigns, to me means that marketing investments do not influence eventual financial returns of films in predictable way. A is too extreme, while D is not as extreme

I agree with you that D has some merit, so let's try to use negation to see why A is more critical as an assumption and why it's more directly linked to the conclusion. Also, let me just quickly add that D is extreme also in that it says "do not". Any absolute can be considered extreme, and this argument uses the extreme word "all" in the conclusion. Because of that I would lean on the extreme concept less heavily in this question.

I'm going to walk through the parts of the argument again:
Conclusion: To maximize returns, studios should initially release all their films on a small number of screens with limited marketing
WHY?
Premise: Many decisions such as increasing the screens and expanding the marketing are best made after obtaining audience reaction

Okay, so since these decisions are best made after getting audience reaction, I should use this plan for ALL films. Wow! That requires a big assumption . . . that it never maximizes revenue to do something else.

Let's negate and see which one blows up our conclusion, that we should use this system with all films.

Look at A:
A) Large marketing investments made before the opening weekend never eventually yield greater profits than small initial marketing investments.
Negation: Large marketing investments made before the opening weekend SOMETIMES eventually yield greater profits than small initial marketing investments. Yep, this blows up our conclusion that we should use this system for all films. Notice how nicely in scope it is with the argument.

D) Across the movie industry, marketing investments do not influence the eventual financial returns of films in predictable way.
Negation: Across the movie industry, marketing investments sometimes influence the eventual financial returns of films in predictable ways. This isn't as damaging to our conclusion. So sometimes these investments influence financial returns predictably and sometimes they don't. Does that completely destroy the idea that we should use this system? Not as much as A does.

I hope that this helps you. To me A is superior because it HAS to be true for the conclusion to stand, and that is the very definition of the assumption. D is not quite as necessary as A.

[dhlee922]

thank you jamie for posting a helpful reply.

to tim: on page 51, at the bottom of the page of the critical reasoning book, 4th edition, the last paragraph states that extreme words can be in correct answer but they must be the same extreme word or equivalent must be in the original argument.

jamie explained that all is an extreme world in the conclusion.

jamie, so would you say that all is equivalent to never? not that the words or meanings are equal or synonyms, but in the sense that both are extremes and relevant to the context of the statements? so since never appears in the answer, all is its matching extreme word in the argument?

and i should not take it as a literal meaning that if i see an extreme word (never) in the answer choice, i have to see the same extreme word (never) in the body of the argument?

thank you very much jamie!

[tim]

thanks for the reference. you do not need literally the same extreme word in the argument and the conclusion. in this case, "all" and "never" are functionally the same because you could change one into the other fairly easily. consider this example:

ALL prime numbers are greater than or equal to 2
a prime number is NEVER less than 2

these mean exactly the same thing!

[dhlee922]

thanks tim