Question stem says, which one of the following principles is valid most helps to justify the

reasoning? So, most helps to justify are the three keywords I pick up on to categorize this as a PSA

rule application question. These tend to be formulaic. This one is a bit of a deviation,

but that's fine. You know, we get that every once in a while, so let's dive into the stimulus.

people's criticism of the popular film comedy quirks for not being realistic misguided. I see.

So there's this movie quirks. It's a comedy. It's very popular and there are some people that

criticize quirk for being unrealistic and the critic comes to defense says, yeah, you know

what that criticism it's just a weird angle of attack. It's it's not relevant, right? It's

misguided. You're not tracking what matters here. That's what our author is saying. So that very

much sounds like the conclusion which requires support. Why not, right? Why is this critique

misguided? Well, it is certainly true that the characters are too stylized to be real people. So

interesting right out the gate. The author concedes the point that it's actually not realistic, right?

The characters are too stylized to be real real people, meaning they're not real. It's not

realistic. Okay, but then why is it not fair game to call it out for being unrealistic? Why is that

misguided? And the author says that could be problematic, but in this case, resulting film

is funny and that is the important thing for a comedy. Ah, okay. So now presumably if quirks were

a what documentary, then that's probably what where the author would think it's problematic,

you know, for a documentary to be unrealistic, it's problematic. But you know, the thing is

quirks is a comedy. So it just doesn't matter is what the author is presuming, right? It's what

the author is presuming. Not saying, not saying, but just presuming because the author, you know,

the explicit premises is just that the film is funny and being funny is the important thing for

comedy. So let's just explicitly list out the premises, right? Being funny is the important

thing for a comedy and quirks is funny, which, you know, together the author didn't draw this

conclusion, but you can, you can take these two premises and draw a conclusion that quirks is a

good comedy, right? I mean, being funny is important thing for comedy and quirks is funny.

Therefore quirks is a good comedy. Okay. And so, so yes, it's also true that, I mean, it's a fact

that quirks is unrealistic, but I'm not writing that out as a premise because it doesn't matter.

It's, it doesn't, it doesn't support the author's conclusion, right? So let me just draw the line

down here because the actual conclusion is that therefore the critique that it's unrealistic is

misguided, right? Which is another way of saying it just doesn't matter. Being funny is what's

important for a comedy and quirks is a comedy and it is funny and therefore criticizing it for being

unrealistic, which the author concedes, just is misguided. Okay. Now I'm not really sure how to

anticipate this P2C bridge here. I really don't know how to anticipate that, but that's fine.

You know, sometimes you will have to, even in these PSA questions, you'll have to just let the

answer choices feed you. Let's just read the answers and see which one helps us connect these

premises and make them more relevant to the conclusion. First up, A says films should be

me, you know, because if accuracy of capturing the world is the metric that I'm using, then quirks

kind of fails because it was conceded already that quirks is not realistic. So if that's the

judgment, right, that's how we're going to render judgment, then that's not good for this film, right?

And just in general, I'm trying to, I'm on the side of this movie. I'm trying to defend this movie.

I'm not trying to dunk on this movie, right? So that's why A just directionally is wrong. Next up,

as long as they're, B is laying out some sufficient condition for films are successful. So this helps

me defend the movie, right? Films are successful as long as they're popular. Okay. So this just says

if you're popular, then you're successful. We know it's popular, so therefore we can say quirks is

successful, but B feels kind of weird because B, you know, it's like, B, here's why B feels weird.

It's ignoring this entire argument, right? Notice the popular claim is actually just embedded into

the conclusion. The criticism of the popular film quirks for not being realistic is misguided.

And then B just comes along and is like, yeah, that's right. Because you mentioned it was popular. And as

long as it's popular, it's successful. And I guess I just have to make an additional assumption that

if it's successful, then, you know, this kind of critique is misguided, right? But, but you see

what I mean? Like it just, it's refusing to engage with the argument at all, right? B works just as

well to like, you know, uh, reach the conclusion that this film is successful, even if you just

deleted all of the premises. So that's weird. That can't be right. Okay. But you know, something's not

quite clicking here. So maybe, maybe you want to keep B around and keep evaluating. That's fine,

right? Like as a strategy, that's totally fine. Just keep it around. Next up, C says film comedies

films should find their humor. Here's where in their stylistic portrayals, as opposed to somewhere

else, I guess, but we don't need to establish that quirks is funny. We already know it's already been

established that the film is funny. So laying out a prescription for how comedy films should find

their humor. Isn't helpful. We already know this film is funny. We're trying to build off of that,

right? That's our starting position. Quirks is funny. Okay. Quirks is funny. Therefore something.

So I'm saying like, this is our starting. We're trying to get to a, this, this destination.

Answer choice C is trying to figure out how to land something, right? Trying to get us over here,

but we're already over here. Okay. So that's why C is not the right answer. Next up, D says

if so can a sufficient condition, right? So far, very similar structurally to be if they succeed

within their genre. Okay. So now you see that this is good, right? This is much better than B

because unlike B, this answer doesn't ignore the argument. In fact, it makes full use of the

argument, right? If they succeed within their genre, has Quirk succeeded within his genre? I

mean, it doesn't explicitly say that, but what did these two premises say? Being funny is the

important thing for comedy and Quirks is funny. Okay. Together, that means what? It's not a big

lead to say, therefore Quirks is successful as a comedy. Now, if it's successful as a comedy,

then it's a successful film. That's what D tells us, right? So with D, we do get to draw the

conclusion that Quirks is a successful film. And if it's a successful film, then yeah, it seems like

critiquing it for being unrealistic is misguided, right? It's like, you know, critiquing a drama for

being not funny. That's misguided. Okay. So far, D is far better than the other answers. And as we

know, it turns out to be the right answer. But let's take a look at E, which says films should

against trying to like be in two genres at the same time. You can't be a comedy and a drama at

the same time. You cannot be a thriller and a documentary at the same time, right? Okay, but

nobody's talking about that, right? Like Quirks is a comedy. As far as we know, it's only a comedy.

We're just trying to say whether the criticism that hey, Quirks, you're kind of unrealistic,

whether that's a relevant criticism or whether it's irrelevant, right? And answer choice E doesn't

help. Okay, answer choice C doesn't help. A doesn't help. Really, the only two things that could even

possibly help are B and D because they're the two that at least allow us to say that Quirks is

successful. And the difference between the two is that B ignores the argument. B pretends like this

whole argument didn't even exist, whereas D doesn't, right? D uses the premises to get us to

the conclusion that Quirks is successful. And from there, we say hence this critique of it

being unrealistic is misguided.