#2 - Concept Reference, Must Be True

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

The correct answer choice is (D).

Answer choice (A):

Answer choice (B):

Answer choice (C):

Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer choice.

Answer choice (E):


This explanation is still in progress. Please post any questions below!

[annagarrison99]

how do we know it is true that the nonfiction films were intended to be supporting films? All that is said about this is that "with some exceptions, nonfiction films have always been supporting films, not main attractions." That doesn't necessarily mean that they were *intended* to be only supporting films though, right?

And is the passage not implying that A could be correct, that nonfiction films were usually produced by studios that focused on exclusively nonfiction films? The second paragraph says, "the philosophy of 'collecting the similar' is often inappropriate for screening early film, **especially nonfiction**... requires showing several films of the same type" and, right after that, that "gathering together several short films **by the same maker or studio** [not the same genre]... is profoundly dull for the viewer."


I could see how it could go the other way too, I'm just wondering why/how this line of thinking is incorrect. Thanks!

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi Anna,

Great question. The passage tells us that nonfiction films were short films, and were typically screened with different types of films. They weren't main events because they, like other films of the time, were supporting. Most films of the time were supporting films (per the passage). We don't know that they were produced by the same studio. The passage was using the idea that showing films from the same studio or director would be boring because it would be similar in some way, not necessarily that they would be the same genre.

Hope that helps!

[Aspiring-Logicl-Rsnr]

Hi,

I'm uncertain about two things here, and I'd love someone's guidance.

First, does this question show the LSAT trending toward more acceptance of small inferences in correct answers to "according to" questions? I'm used to verbs like "according" and "indicates" meaning that I should look for an answer that is more or less explicitly mentioned in the stimulus. That's not the case here, of course—we need to infer from the fact that nonfiction films functioned as supporting films that they were usually intended to function as supporting films. (But what if the nonfiction film industry actually aspired to rule Hollywood, even though their hopes were miserably dashed?? The stimulus doesn't make this impossible ...)

Second, is one reason that A is wrong because it is implicitly making a statement about all—not just some—early nonfiction films? I'm struggling to find another compelling reason to choose A over D here. Because there's no explicit "all" in A, I first read it as saying something like "Some were produced by studios that focused exclusively on nonfiction films." Such a statement is an inference from the passage, of course. But it doesn't seem like a more speculative inference than that of A. After all, we know that (1) retrospectives involve "collecting together and screening several examples of the work of a particular director, star, studio, etc." and (2) these retrospectives result in "showing several films of the same type one after the other in the same sitting" and (3) sometimes this film type is nonfiction (the author spends paragraph 2 talking about nonfiction retrospectives). We know, therefore, that retrospectives that screen examples of a studio's work result in showing films of the same genre (the author uses "type" as genre, unless I'm missing something here?). It doesn't seem that far out to then conclude that at least some studios (the ones which have had retrospectives!) focused exclusively on nonfiction films. How else would their retrospectives result in showing only nonfiction films?

If A is making a statement about all early nonfiction films, however, it's easier to eliminate—there could be nonfiction films made by multi-genre studios that just haven't had retrospectives (perhaps a few low-quality studios, for example, that just haven't retained any scholarly focus).

As you can tell, I'm muddled—thank you, very much, for any clarity you are able to offer me!!

[Jeff Wren]

Hi Aspiring,

The answer to your first question is yes, sometimes the wording of the correct answer won't perfectly match the wording of the passage and you will need to make a small logical step. As the instructions in LR indicate, you are to choose the best answer, even if it is not perfect.

While "intent" is not specifically mentioned in the passage, the fact that nonfiction films have almost always been supporting films suggests that their role as supporting films was expected by the audience and presumably by the cinemas and the studios as well. Perhaps the word "understood" would have been a better choice than "intended," but we work with what the test makers give us.

For Answer A, "they" would refer to "all" rather than "some." Since we don't much about "all" early nonfiction films based on the passage, the correct answer in this situation will often include a modifier that lessens the absolute certainty such as "usually," which Answer D does.

However, even if Answer A did change the answer to "some studios," it would still be incorrect. There is no support in the passage that any studios focused exclusively on nonfiction films.

You wrote:

It doesn't seem that far out to then conclude that at least some studios (the ones which have had retrospectives!) focused exclusively on nonfiction films. How else would their retrospectives result in showing only nonfiction films?

Retrospectives don't show all of a studio's films. A studio may have hundreds or even thousands of films. A retrospective of a studio's nonfiction films would be a selection/sample of the studio's many films (which would likely include fiction as well as nonfiction.)