#26 - Film director: Although the production costs of my

[mokkyukkyu]

Hi,
I think E is the best one among the 5, but I was not sure about the answer choice either at first because I thought what happened in the past may not be true always...what happened in the past cannot always apply to what would happen in the future.
I thought some LR questions actually have dealt with this issue, so I was not sure why now D can be used as weaker.

Thanks,

[Nikki Siclunov]

Hi mokkyukkyu,

This argument has little to do with a Time Shift (or the "Appeal to Tradition") error. What has happened in the past certainly does not provide definitive proof of what will happen in the future, but it may suggest a heightened probability of such an occurrence. Rather, the issue has to do with cost/benefit: the director's latest film is expensive, but he's arguing that the film studio can easily recover the costs. Why? Because even if it's unpopular, the special effects technology can be used in future films.

Answer choice (D) provides a reasonable way to weaken the conclusion. If such technologies are typically abandoned if the film for which they were developed proved to be unpopular, then the director's argument is immediately weakened. Answer choice (D) does not disprove his conclusion, but it makes it less likely that the film studio will be able to recover their cost.

By contrast, answer choice (E) actually strengthens the argument. If the use of the new technology would lower the production costs of other films that use it, then the film studio can save money in the long run.

Hope this helps!

Thanks,