Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- 33.6K All Categories
- 28.2K LSAT
- 17.1K General
- 5.2K Logical Reasoning
- 1.4K Reading Comprehension
- 1.7K Logic Games
- 70 Podcasts
- 192 Webinars
- 11 Scholarships
- 194 Test Center Reviews
- 2.2K Study Groups
- 112 Study Guides/Cheat Sheets
- 2.5K Specific LSAT Dates
- 36 November 2024 LSAT
- 18 October 2024 LSAT
- 9 September 2024 LSAT
- 38 August 2024 LSAT
- 28 June 2024 LSAT
- 4 April 2024 LSAT
- 11 February 2024 LSAT
- 22 January 2024 LSAT
- 38 November 2023 LSAT
- 43 October 2023 LSAT
- 14 September 2023 LSAT
- 38 August 2023 LSAT
- 27 June 2023 LSAT
- 30 Sage Advice
- 5K Not LSAT
- 4K Law School Admissions
- 13 Law School Explained
- 10 Forum Rules
- 647 Technical Problems
- 288 Off-topic
PT73.S2.Q06 - critic: the criticism of the popular film
Accounts Playable
Live Sage ⭐
I had this down to B or D during the timed exam, and I can't figure out what is technically wrong with B. In my mind, it's as close to a sufficient assumption as D is.
http://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-73-section-2-question-06/
This is a pseudo-sufficient assumption question.
The characters are too stylized for them to be real people. The film is funny, which is important for comedy. The film is popular. Therefore, the criticism of the film for not being realistic is wrong.
What I am looking for: If a comedy is funny, then it's wrong to criticize it for it being not realistic.
Answer A: This severely hurts the argument, which a PSA shouldn't do.
Answer B: I don't see what's wrong with this. This doesn't bring in the comedy part, but I don't see how this isn't a PSA if D is also. We know the film is popular, so if we assume that "if a film is popular, then it is successful," isn't that equally as good answer choice D? Success isn't the word I'd use, but that's why this is a PSA question and not a true SA question. Answer D (the correct answer) also uses the word success.
I get that the "popularity" part is most likely context, but why can't a sufficient assumption make the context relevant to the argument itself? For example, say that
1.) All Jedi use the Force.
Therefore, David uses the Force.
The obvious missing sufficient assumption is "David is a Jedi." But, couldn't I also say that "Everyone named David uses the Force?" To me, that's equally as good a sufficient assumption since it provides an assumption that allows our conclusion to follow validly.
Answer C: We have no idea what films should/shouldn't do.
Answer
This is close to what I anticipated, so I picked this and kept it during BR. However, what technically makes this better than B? If a film succeeds within a genre (comedy), then the film is successful. Isn't this structurally the same thing as B? The necessary conditions for both B and D are "films are successful" and both sufficient conditions bring in known facts about the film.
Answer E: Same as answer C. We don't know what films should/shouldn't do.
http://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-73-section-2-question-06/
This is a pseudo-sufficient assumption question.
The characters are too stylized for them to be real people. The film is funny, which is important for comedy. The film is popular. Therefore, the criticism of the film for not being realistic is wrong.
What I am looking for: If a comedy is funny, then it's wrong to criticize it for it being not realistic.
Answer A: This severely hurts the argument, which a PSA shouldn't do.
Answer B: I don't see what's wrong with this. This doesn't bring in the comedy part, but I don't see how this isn't a PSA if D is also. We know the film is popular, so if we assume that "if a film is popular, then it is successful," isn't that equally as good answer choice D? Success isn't the word I'd use, but that's why this is a PSA question and not a true SA question. Answer D (the correct answer) also uses the word success.
I get that the "popularity" part is most likely context, but why can't a sufficient assumption make the context relevant to the argument itself? For example, say that
1.) All Jedi use the Force.
Therefore, David uses the Force.
The obvious missing sufficient assumption is "David is a Jedi." But, couldn't I also say that "Everyone named David uses the Force?" To me, that's equally as good a sufficient assumption since it provides an assumption that allows our conclusion to follow validly.
Answer C: We have no idea what films should/shouldn't do.
Answer
This is close to what I anticipated, so I picked this and kept it during BR. However, what technically makes this better than B? If a film succeeds within a genre (comedy), then the film is successful. Isn't this structurally the same thing as B? The necessary conditions for both B and D are "films are successful" and both sufficient conditions bring in known facts about the film.Answer E: Same as answer C. We don't know what films should/shouldn't do.
Comments
I hope this helps.
In my opinion, D being correct and B being incorrect boils down to the question stem. It's not asking for a PSA, but rather for the principle that would justify the critic's reasoning . The critic doesn't mention anything about the film being popular. He just mentions that it's funny, which is important for a comedy. We can rephrase that to mean "It's successful AS a comedy". D bridges the gap from successful as a comedy to successful in general.
I have a question about this type of question... @"Accounts Playable" You say that C and E are wrong because they say what films "SHOULD" do... You criticize these answer choices on the grounds that we do not know what films should do.... But I thought the whole point of PSA and SA questions are to take the premises in the answer choice for granted and apply them to the argument... Why then are these two choice wrong? Clearly it shouldn't be only for the reason that they are prescriptive statements....
@"Accounts Playable" I think it is more appropriate to specify that the answer choices are wrong on the following terms:
C: This answer choice states that comedies should find humour in their stylistic portrayals... Stylistic has an entirely different meaning than stylized... For something to be stylistic means that it refers to or is about style, for example stylistic changes in a person's writing. This answer choice is not telling us anything about whether characters should be "stylized" or not... All we know is that it should find its humour in stylistic portrayals... But should those stylistic portrayals be stylized or realistic?... Stylized on the other hand, means something that is not real... like it is specified in the stimulus
E: the problem here is that the answer choice prescribes for films that they should try to stay entirely within their genre... I disagree with your reasoning as to why this answer choice is incorrect because in my opinion, the error is in the fact that we have no idea what it means to be within a single genre. See, it's not that we disagree with the premise of this AC but rather that we don't have anything to pin down our reasoning to... SO, what does it mean to stay within a genre? Only to portray characters realistically or not? Or for the film to be funny? What about employing an equally diverse cast? Is that a requirement for the genre of comedy?
Let me know if you agree with me? In addition, I really didn't like your explanation of why these two answer choices are incorrect because you completely threw out my understanding of PSA and SA techniques...
Finally, I think I have an answer to why B is incorrect and I will largely build on what @runiggyrun and @Elle2015 have said above. "Films are successful as long as they are popular." Yes, good to know, that's great... But what about that whole thing with the film been funny and that that's what matters when considering a comedy? There's none of that in this answer choice... This answer choice completely misses the reasoning of the critic. In my opinion the answer choice must somehow be related to the reasoning... I do see where the confusion comes from but to me, what matters is that an answer choice ought directly connected to the reasoning. Or maybe I'm just justifying this argument a posteriori