LSAT 159 | Section 3 | Logical Reasoning: Q2

LR Question 2 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Entertainment reporter: Unlike most major motion pictures …

QUESTION TYPE: Necessary Assumption

CONCLUSION: Escapade 2’s distributors chose to avoid doing anything that could reduce interest in the movie.

REASONING: Most movies have a free screening before they’re released for promo, but this one didn’t. Despite this, there’s high awareness and interest in the movie.

ANALYSIS: There are two main ideas here: (1) there were no advance screenings (which is unusual) and (2) the distributor wanted to avoid reducing public interest.

For that reasoning to hold, the reporter must be assuming that advance screenings could indeed reduce interest. If screenings had no such risk – or increased interest – the conclusion wouldn’t make sense.

___________

1. This shifts the explanation to a financial reason, but the argument isn’t about money. The negation of this doesn’t impact the argument.
   Negation: Advance screenings wouldn’t cost them a significant amount or couldn’t be more effectively spent on advertising.
2. CORRECT. This perfectly connects the two ideas. The reporter’s conclusion only works if the distributors believe that screenings could reduce excitement or interest. Otherwise, there’s no reason to skip them. The negation of this destroys the argument.
   Negation: Advance screenings would not lead to a reduction in enthusiasm of filmgoers who would otherwise want to see the movie.
3. Tempting. It’s easy to think “Well, if the advance audiences didn’t like the movie, that would reduce interest”. But the argument never says why advance screenings might reduce interest. Maybe screenings spoil surprises or leak plot twists. Those factors could reduce interest without anyone disliking the movie. So the reporter’s reasoning doesn’t NEED to assume audiences wouldn’t enjoy it.
   Negation: The audiences who would usually be invited to pre-screenings would probably not enjoy the movie.
4. This confuses awareness with intention. The argument never assumes or implies that awareness equals intent to watch (it even distinguishes between awareness and definite interest). This is irrelevant to the reporter’s assumption.
   Negation: If 96% of the public is aware of the movie’s release, it’s not likely that 96% actually intends to see it.
5. This is just a prediction about attendance. But the reporter’s reasoning doesn’t require any specific attendance level, only the belief that advance screenings could harm that interest.
   Negation: If no advance screenings are given, it’s not true that about 60% of the public would see the movie.