A common misconception on the LSAT is that “principle questions” are a thing. In fact, the word “principle” appears in multiple question types which you should treat very differently. The most important thing to look for when you see the word “principle” is whether the principle points up or down. Some questions (PSAa or Rule Application questions) give us a principle in the stimulus and ask us to apply it down to the answer choices. These are akin to Most Strongly Supported questions, where we must be cautious of overstrong language and stick only to inferences supported by the stimulus.

This question (a PSAr or Find The Rule question) does the opposite: it presents a bunch of principles in the answer choices and asks us to apply them up to the stimulus in an effort to justify the argument. These are akin to Strengthen questions, where overstrong language is completely fine and we’re hoping to bridge any gaps in the argument we can find.

PSAr questions tend to follow routine patterns, and our approach can therefore be similarly routine. First, it’s critical to identify the argument’s conclusion and the premise(s) that seek to support it. In a shockingly high proportion of PSAr questions, the correct answer will take the form: Premise → Conclusion.

Like in normal Strengthen questions, though, it’s also important to note any common flaws you see, or (especially) subtle jumps from one concept to another (e.g. from talking about athletes to talking about professional athletes). Correct answers that address weaknesses like these are common as well.

Here’s a distillation of the argument’s core structure and content:

Context: Portrayal was inaccurate.
Premise: Portrayal was really good in other ways.
Conclusion: The inaccuracy is irrelevant to appreciation.

Irrelevant is a strong word. That’s the key here. Let’s say we’re judging Shakespeare's play on a points system:

Aesthetically Fascinating & Illuminating: 10pts
Morally Fascinating & Illuminating: 10pts

Inaccuracy being irrelevant means it doesn’t affect the point total at all.

It turns out the correct answer in this question departs from the Premise → Conclusion pattern a bit, but we don’t know that yet. Here’s the Premise → Conclusion style anticipation:

If a portrayal is good in other ways, its inaccuracies don’t affect appreciation at all.