> The Hollywood mention is the non sequitur, because Hollywood does produce lots of original work. Hollywood producing lots of original work is exactly why I c

> The Hollywood mention is the non sequitur, because Hollywood does produce lots of original work. Hollywood producing lots of original work is exactly why I chose that example. You seem to be agreeing with that, but somehow at the same time wanting to disagree with me. It's puzzling. > And there's a lot more to the entire art of filmmaking than what's encompassed by dubbing. Absolutely, although this modifies your original claim, which was making original things as opposed to film making. Curiously, that makes the non sequiturness even stronger. At best I can attribute some correctness to your original statement in the way of opportunity costs. In that being good at dubbing concedes one's ability at being good at film making the same way as being good at mathematics concedes one's ability at being a good dancer. There just isn't enough time to be world class at both. Was your original statement about opportunity cost, or how else would you say that it follows from being a good dubber to conceding the possibility of being a good film maker? -- PS. I'm not making any claims whatsoever about whether Italians are good/bad at dubbing or film making. I'm merely talking about a critical logic mistake in your statement.