LSAT 118 | Section 1 | Logical Reasoning: Q13

LR Question 13 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: If the play were successful, it would be adapted …

QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Reasoning

CONCLUSION: The play will not become a movie or be revived at the festival.

REASONING: If it was successful → movie or festival. The play was not successful.

ANALYSIS: This is a classic conditional reasoning mistake.

The first sentence tells us:

Successful → Movie OR Festival

Then the author concludes:

NOT Successful → Not Movie AND Not Festival

But that’s not a valid move. The author is treating success as though it is the only way to get a movie adaptation or festival revival.

All we know is that success is sufficient to get one of those things. But we do not know that success is necessary.

Think of it like this: If you get an A, you’ll receive a scholarship. You didn’t get an A. So, you won’t receive a scholarship.

Hm. Not necessarily. Maybe athletic scholarships exist. Maybe financial aid scholarships exist. Maybe other academic awards exist.

The author ignores the possibility that there could be other routes to the outcome.

___________

1. The flaw isn’t about choosing the wrong negation of “or”. The problem arises much earlier: the author isn’t entitled to conclude anything about movie adaptations or revivals from the fact that the play isn’t successful.
2. Whether we know exactly how the play is unsuccessful is irrelevant.
3. The argument never discusses artistic merit. It only discusses success.
4. Even if there were ten other possibilities, the flaw would remain the same. The argument doesn’t need to assume these are the only possible future opportunities for the play.
5. CORRECT. Success is one sufficient condition for adaptation or revival. But the argument treats the absence of success as ruling out those outcomes. But there could be other sufficient conditions that might lead to adaptation or revival despite the play’s lack of success.