LSAT 33, Logical Reasoning I, Q2, LSATHacks

QUESTION TEXT: Sheila: It has been argued that using…

QUESTION TYPE: Method of Reasoning

CONCLUSION: A colorized film does not hurt the integrity of the original black and white film.

REASONING: The original work stands on its own. We don’t argue that a movie version of a story hurts the original book.

ANALYSIS: Sheila uses an analogy to make her point. Adaptations are fine in other circumstances so they should be fine for movies. 

___________

1. CORRECT. Adaptations of books are similar (analogous) to adaptations of movies. 
2. A counterexample is something that disproves an idea by using a similar situation. Sheila’s examples help prove her idea instead.
3. Sheila does say that “no one argues.” But that doesn’t appeal to popular opinion. She’s making the point that neither the public nor experts think that book adaptations are wrong.
4. Actually the whole thing is about value judgments. Sheila points out that color adaptations are fine because we judge book adaptations to be fine.
5. It’s not clear which general principle Sheila uses. The example about books only applies to books. Sheila uses this as an analogy to support her argument, but an analogy can never prove an argument on its own. A general principle would be something like: “All adaptations are new works.”

LawHub Order

LawHub Order

---