A-

:)

Ryan argues that Ben Affleck “has a somewhat limited range” as an actor. As premises to support his conclusion he offers the facts that Mr. Affleck is “a solid actor”, that he “is very good at what he does well”, that he has not acted poorly in many movies and when he has acted poorly, it has been through no fault of his.

None of the premises make it rationally believable that Mr. Affleck has a limited range. The fact that Mr. Affleck is a “solid actor” (generally accepted as an above average actor) does not support the conclusion that he has a limited range. If anything, the fact that he is an above average actor would lead one to believe that he a good range. Most likely though, Ryan was not using this statement to support his argument but rather he was granting concessions to those who may disagree. Ryan’s next premise is that Mr. Affleck “is good at what he does well,” meaning that Mr. Affleck is talented at acting in a few similar roles. The implication is that he is not very good at roles dissimilar to his most famous roles. This premise, which is not supported but generally believable, supports the conclusion that Mr. Affleck’s range is limited. However, the fact that Mr. Affleck does not act poorly often does not support the conclusion that he has a limited range. It means that he has either chosen many very similar roles or that he has a large range.
Ryan doesn’t convince me that Ben Affleck has a limited range. Actually, if I accepted his premises, I may come to the conclusion that Mr. Affleck is a talented actor (possibly with a large range) who has chosen many similar roles during his career.

He’s a solid actor, and is very good at what he does well; I’ve just come to the conclusion that he just has a somewhat limited range. Honestly, there’s not very many movies where he’s bad in them, most of the bad movies he’s been in has more to do with the source material.