QUESTION TEXT: If a film is accepted by the…
QUESTION TYPE: Parallel Flawed Reasoning
CONCLUSION: This film’s financial backers will not recoup their investment.
REASONING: If a film is accepted by the festival committee, then a distributor attending the festival will buy it. The backers are assured of recouping their investment if a distributor buys the film. This film was not accepted by the festival committee.
ANALYSIS: This is a classic LSAT error. The author tells us that the backers will certainly recoup their investment if a distributor buys the film. However, this does not mean that the backers have no other way of recouping their investment.
The logic in this argument is as follows. We want an answer that matches exactly.
If accepted, then bought.
If bought, then investment is recouped.
Not accepted, so investment is not recouped.
___________
- This is not the same pattern of reasoning. If the conclusion was “the film does not have a good story, so it won’t do well at the box office”, then it would match. As is, the conclusion is sound.
- CORRECT. This argument matches exactly. In this argument, having several stars is the equivalent of being accepted, being successful is the equivalent of being bought, and having a long run is the equivalent of recouping the investment.
- This is a similar flaw, but does not match the stimulus. In the stimulus, the author concluded that an outcome will not occur because a sufficient condition did not occur. In this answer, the author concludes that a sufficient condition occurred because the outcome occurred.
- This answer doesn’t match, because here the intermediate condition (the star being nominated for an award) is not met, whereas in the stimulus it was the first condition (being accepted).
- Similarly to A, this answer’s conclusion is actually sound.
Free Logical Reasoning lesson
Get a free sample of the Logical Reasoning Mastery Seminar. Learn tips for solving LR questions
Leave a Reply