45.       
　　In this argument the author concludes that paying Robin¹ Good several million dollars to star in the movie "3003" is the most likely way for the movie's producers to maximize their profits. The author's line of reasoning is that because Robin has been paid similar amounts of money to work in other films that were financially successful, it is likely that "3003" will also be financially successful if Robin stars in it. This argument is unconvincing in two important respects.
    
　　 The main problem with this argument involves the author's assumption that the financial success of the other films was due entirely² to Robin Good's participation³. If this were the case, it would certainly make good sense to pay Robinhandsomely to star in "3003." However, the author offers no evidence to support this contention⁴.

      Moreover, there are many factors that could account for the financial success of the movies in which Robin previously⁵ appeared, other than the mere⁶ fact that Robin appeared in them. For example, their financial success might have been due to the photography, the plot of the story, the director, or any combination of these. Lacking a more detailed⁷ analysis of thereasons for the success of these other movies, it is folly⁸ to presume that their financial success was entirely due to Robin's participation.

      In conclusion, this is a weak argument. To strengthen the conclusion that hiring Robin is the best way for the producers of "3003" to maximize their profits, the author would have to provide evidence that the financial success of the movies Robin previously worked in resulted solely⁹ from the fact that Robin starred in them.
46.      
　　 In this argument the directors of a security- and safety-consulting service conclude that the use of photo identification badges should be recommended to all of their clients as a means to prevent employee theft. Their conclusion is based on a study revealing that ten of their previous clients who use photo identification badges have had no incidents of employee theft over the past six-year period. The directors' recommendation is problematic in several respects.

      In the first place, the directors' argument is based on the assumption that the reason for the Jack¹⁰ of employee theft in the ten companies was the fact that their employees wear photo identification badges. However, the evidence revealed in their research establishes only a positive correlation¹¹ between the lack of theft and the requirement to wear badges; it does not establish a causal connection between them. Other factors, such as the use of surveillance cameras or spot checks of employees' briefcases¹² and purses could be responsible for lack of employee theft within the ten companies analyzed¹³.

      In the second place, the directors assume that employee theft is a problem that is common among their clients and about which their clients are equally concerned. However, for some of their clients this might not be a problem at all. Forexample, companies that sell services are much less likely to be concerned about employee theft than those who sell products. Moreover, those that sell small products would be more concerned about theft than those that sell large products. Consequently, even if wearing badges reduces employee theft, it might not be necessary for all of the firm's clients to follow this practice.

      In conclusion, the director's recommendation is not well supported. To strengthen the conclusion they must establish a causal relation between the wearing of identification badges and the absence of employee theft. They also must establish that the firm's clients are sufficiently¹⁴ similar to all profit from this practice.