Self-study
Film director: Although the production costs of my latest film are very high, there is little risk that the film studio will not recover these costs. Even if the film is unpopular, much of the money is being spent to develop innovative special-effects technology that could be used in future films.
26.
Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
a
Because the film studio owns the new technology, the studio will be able to control its use in any future films.
This doesn't weaken the argument, it strengthens it. Since the studio will have exclusive rights to this new technology going forward and can make sure the technology is used in films produced by this studio, it seems more likely that the studio will profit from investing in this technology during this current film project.
b
Films that introduce innovative special-effects technologies generally draw large audiences of people who are curious about the new effects.
This doesn't weaken the argument. The director's conclusion is that there is little risk of not recovering the cost of the film. While the director believed this would be true even if the film was unpopular, because of the investment in special-effects technology, this answer choice gives us a reason to think the film will be popular at the box office, which would make the risk of not recovering the production costs even smaller. Box office revenue alone might cover most or all of the production costs, even without considering future use of the new technology.
c
The production costs of this film are so high that, even if the film is popular, it is unlikely that the film's ticket sales will offset those costs.
This doesn't weaken the argument. The film director has already accounted for scenarios where the film loses money at the box office. The director's conclusion isn't based on ticket sales, but on future returns from investing in this new special-effects technology.
d
In the past, many innovative special-effects technologies were abandoned after the films for which they were developed proved to be unpopular.
This weakens the argument. It suggests that investing in this special-effects technology may not be a worthwhile investment, as it may never be used again if this movie fails at the box office. Since that’s the only way the film director mentions that the studio will recover costs, this undermines the film director’s argument that it’s likely the studio will recover costs.
e
The use of the new special-effects technology would lower the production costs of other films that use it.
We don't know who is producing these other films. If other studios are producing the films, this isn't really relevant to the argument. If the same studio is producing these films, then this tells us the special-effects technology would save the studio money in the long run, which might help it recover the costs of this first film. This would strengthen, not weaken, the argument.