#24 - Filmmaker: Many people feel that independent films have more integrity

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Justify the Conclusion. The correct answer choice is (B).

Answer choice (A):

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

Answer choice (C):

Answer choice (D):

Answer choice (E):

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

[kendragipson]

Hello! Can someone please explain this question? I was torn between A and B. I ultimately chose A, but it was a bit more of a guess. I recognized the "leap" that the argument made, but A and B sounded essentially the same to me. How can I approach this question (or others like it) again with confidence that I am picking the correct answer? Thank you!

[katehos]

Hi kendragipson!

In order to answer your question, let's start by breaking down the stimulus!

The filmmaker comes to the conclusion that "most independent films do not have absolute integrity as works of art."

To support this conclusion, the filmmaker relies on a few premises:

• All independent filmmakers need to make profits on their films

• Needing to make profits affects the artistic decisions in creating most independent films

Immediately, we notice that "absolute integrity" is not mentioned in the premises but it is mentioned in the stimulus. This is a "new" element, so if we try to solve this question using the mechanistic approach, we know that the correct answer will include this "new" element. This allows us to eliminate (C), (D), and (E), leaving us with only (A) and (B) -- good job! Continuing to use the mechanistic approach, we also know that elements that appear in the premises but not the conclusion will likely appear in the correct answer, so what element is in the premises but not the conclusion? Making profits!

Ultimately, this is where the logical leap lies: we need something to bridge the gap between making profits and not having absolute integrity. Now, both (A) and (B) mention absolute integrity and making profits to some degree, but there's a key distinction between the two.

Let's think of (A) and (B) using conditional diagrams:

• (A) Artistic decisions UNaffected by need to make profits Has Absolute Integrity

• (B) Artistic decisions affected by need to make profits Does NOT have absolute integrity

As you can see, (A) is discussing a situation in which decisions are NOT affected by need for profits and DO have absolute integrity, which is effectively a Mistaken Negation of what we are looking for. In Justify questions, we are looking for a SUFFICIENT (making profits) condition that MAKES the conclusion (no absolute integrity) true. So, (B) is the correct answer because making profits is sufficient for a creation to not have absolute integrity.

You can apply the mechanistic approach to most Justify the Conclusion questions to help you in the future! Try to consider reducing the stimulus to its component parts (aka identifying the premises and conclusions) then identifying elements that appear in the conclusion but not the premises since they will appear in the correct answer choice. Elements that appear in the premises but not the conclusion often appear in the correct answer, like they did here, but not always! Elements that are common to both will usually not be in the correct answer.

Hope this helps!
Kate

[sarah_tucker@alumni.brown.edu]

Hi!

I was stuck between B and E, and ultimately chose B. I decided between the two by matching the conditional reasoning to the final two sentences of the argument (profit affects artistic decisions --> no absolute integrity).

E was a mistaken reversal of that, while B matched it. However, I saw in the notes above that you can also eliminate E because it only references "no integrity" rather than "absolute integrity." Can you explain more how to see that distinction? Can we not assume that the negation of no integrity is absolute integrity in this context?

Thanks!

[atierney]

The negation of having "no integrity" is simply having integrity. Absolute integrity implies a certain purity that serves the crux of the issue in the stimulus. To have absolute requires (necessitates) have no other motives than making art for art's sake. It's like requiring 100 percent of something v. just 80 percent. 80 percent is not 0, i.e. there is some integrity, but not the purest form of integrity denoted by the use of the word "absolute."

Let me know if you have further questions on this.

[mangoshake153]

Hi not clear about how you have identified the sufficient and necessary conditions in this passage and in the two choices A and B . It seems that having absolute integrity is sufficient and the other is necessary in A and similarly for B.

After that pls clarify the sufficient and necessary conditions from the passage as well. So we can visualise compeltely

[Luke Haqq]

Hi mangoshake153!

Let's start with the conclusion of this stimulus: "most independent films do not have absolute integrity as works of art."

Next, we're given a justify-the-conclusion question type. This means that the correct answer choice is sufficient for the conclusion to be drawn.

You might find it helpful to compare what the right answer choice does to the arguments in (1) assumption, (2) strengthen, and (3) justify questions. Suppose we are given an argument with the conclusion that "Xavier is an excellent tennis player."

1. Assumption: Xavier can hit the ball over the net (this is a necessary assumption if Xavier is an excellent tennis player, but it's not sufficient--someone who can hit it over the net might still be terrible)

2. Strengthen: Xavier won a local tournament (this isn't necessary for the conclusion to follow--Xavier might be excellent even without having won a local tournament, and it's also not sufficient to establish the conclusion--winning a local tournament doesn't establish he's excellent, though it at least strengthens that claim)

3. Justify: Xavier won Wimbledon (this is sufficient for the conclusion to follow--winning Wimbledon is more than enough evidence to establish that Xavier is an excellent tennis player)

In this stimulus about films, one thing that should stand out in the conclusion is the phrase "absolute integrity." Absolute integrity wasn't mentioned in any of the prior sentences, even though comparative integrity is mentioned in the first sentence. Since we have a justify question stem, we therefore need to have an answer choice with "absolute integrity" in it to bring the gap from the premises to the conclusion. Without that, it's not possible to get to a conclusion with that new variable.

And looking at answer choices, there is only one in which "absolute integrity" is even mentioned, which is answer choice (B). Often in this situation there'd be at least two answer choices with the new variable, and one would need to test which of those answers uses it correctly. But here there's no need to do that since only one answer choice uses it. We can still test (B), which is saying:

Profits absolute integrity

This formulation (A B) can be rewritten as a double not-arrow:

Profits absolute integrity

This would allow the conclusion to be drawn because we are told that "independent filmmakers need to make profits on their films," or:

Ind. Filmmaker Profits

This allows the conclusion to be drawn because we can combine these:

Ind. Filmmaker Profits absolute integrity

Or in shorter form:

Ind. Filmmaker absolute integrity

Answer choice (B) thus allows the gap to be bridged to get to the new "absolute integrity" variable in the conclusion. This variable isn't even mentioned in answer choice (A), which is why it can't be sufficient to get to the conclusion.

[AmyK33]

Hi! Can someone help me with this - I actually predicted the answer and went right to B, however the phrasing threw me off and I picked a different answer. I don’t understand how the answer is necessary when the word “something” is used. … as in “ The decisions in creating something were affected by the need etc….” Something could mean anything but the argument only works if that something were a film. It’s too broad, I was really thrown off. Thanks!

[Dana D]

Hey Amy,

You are correct, this answer choice is pretty broad, but in this type of question that is ok because it we are looking for an answer choice which, if applied to the stimulus, would justify the conclusion. The test requires you to rethink language a bit - in answer choice (B), something actually means anything, including a movie. This is like a broad underlying principle or truth that would apply to movies and therefore justify the conclusion. You should read answer choice (B) as a rule that, once applied to the stimulus, would mean that independent films cannot have absolute integrity as works of art, because they fall under this umbrella of 'something'.


Does that make sense?

[AmyK33]

Dana thank you for taking the time to answer my question, I am incredibly appreciative of
you and all the other tutors on this site. Being in a situation to do the LSTAT studying on my own without paid resources - this site is my go-to option. I’m grateful!

I do understand that “something” could include the film, which would justify the conclusion. In doing the question, my mind got stuck that something also included anything else, an apple for example, which would not justify the conclusion. But I do understand in theory why it’s the correct answer. Thank you!