LSAT 77, Logical Reasoning II, Q4, LSATHacks

QUESTION TEXT: Film director: It’s inaccurate to say that filmgoers…

QUESTION TYPE: Strengthen

CONCLUSION: The 1-2 negative reviews weren’t the reason my film didn’t get many filmgoers.

REASONING: My film shared an opening weekend with several other similar films. The number of viewers who like that type of film is small.

ANALYSIS: This is a reasonable argument. So reasonable, that you may have missed an unstated assumption: the director is assuming that his type of moviegoers only go to one film in a weekend.

This is certainly true of normal moviegoers, but it helps to state assumptions explicitly.

___________

1. This weakens the argument by showing that 100% of the films reviews were negative.
2. CORRECT. This shows that the competing films were a factor: if a moviegoer went to a competing film, they wouldn’t have also gone to the director’s film.
   This seems obvious, but stating an assumption explicitly always strengthens an argument.
3. This weakens the argument. The director was arguing that his potential audience was small.
4. This is similar to answer A. It emphasizes reviews. This weakens the director’s claim that reviews weren’t a factor.
   Note also that this answer is too vague. The competing movies might have received 1-2 positive reviews and 10 negative reviews. When a strengthen/weaken answer is vague you have to take it at its least useful.
5. So? This has zero impact on the argument. Most filmgoers may like variety, but it’s still true that on opening weekend there was a certain segment of the audience interested in seeing films like the director’s film.

LawHub Order

LawHub Order

---