#19 - If a film is accepted by the festival committee, then one

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Parallel Flaw. 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!

[a.hopp]

I was having a really hard time retaining each answer choice's content - I skipped this question and came back to it so everything was falling out of my brain at that point.

Could you explain why B is the most similar over A and E?

[Jeff Wren]

Hi a.hopp,

This question involves conditional reasoning. You should definitely be diagramming the conditional reasoning in the stimulus and any answers that you need to check, especially if you're having trouble "retaining each answer choice's content." There is absolutely no need to retain the content of each answer and trying to do so is a terrible idea. Diagramming these conditional arguments on your scratch paper will make this question (and other conditional questions) so much easier for you.

(Some test takers who are very familiar/experienced with conditional reasoning may be able to read through the answers and realize that Answer B looks/sounds parallel to the stimulus and diagram this answer first to confirm that it is correct without having to diagram every answer.) While it would be great to diagram all of the answers to double-check your answer, your time may be better spent moving on to other questions and saving those other diagrams for later if you have time remaining after finishing the section.

With proper diagramming, it should be pretty straightforward to see the differences between the answers.

The argument in the stimulus could be diagrammed:

Premises 1 and 2 linked: FA -> DABF -> FFBAR
(FA for film accepted, DABF for distributor attending buys film, FFBAR for film's financial backer's assured recoup)
Premise 3: not FA
Conclusion: not FFBAR

This argument contains a Mistaken Negation. From the fact that the first sufficient condition in the chain does not occur, the argument concludes the the final necessary condition in the chain does not occur.

Answer B (and only Answer B) follows the exact same pattern.

Premises 1 and 2 linked: FFSS -> SBO -> LRT
(FFSS for film features several stars, SBO for successful at box office, LRT for long run at theaters)
Premise 3: not FFSS
Conclusion: not LRT

As you can see, Answer B is identical to the stimulus in its form/pattern of reasoning, all of the terms match up perfectly. In other words, it's the exact same argument with different terms.

Answer A

The argument in Answer A could be diagrammed:

Premises 1 and 2 linked: FGS -> PC -> DWBO
(FGS for film has a good story, PC for praised by critics, DWBO for do well at box office)
Premise 3: not DWBO
Conclusion: not FGS

Hopefully, with this diagram you can spot the difference.

This argument is valid and uses the contrapositive. (In other words, from the fact that the necessary condition of the chain did not occur, it validly concludes that the sufficient condition of the chain did not occur.)

Answer E

The argument in Answer E could be diagrammed:

Premises 1 and 2 linked: FBB -> HP -> RAOCO
(FBB for film has a big budget, HP for heavily promoted, RAOCO for released all over country at once)
Premise 3: FBB
Conclusion: RAOCO

This argument is also valid. It is what we call a restatement (In other words, from the fact that the sufficient condition of the chain occurs, it validly concludes that the necessary condition of the chain occurs.)

More information on conditional reasoning can be found in lesson 2 of The PowerScore LSAT Course and in chapter 6 of "The Logical Reasoning Bible."

[ikim10]

I had my choices narrowed down to (B) and (D). I selected (D), because I was thrown off how in the stimulus it changed from "the film's financial backers are assured of recouping their investment" to "the film's financial backers will not recoup their investment." I thought that the chain of conditional reasoning in the conclusion couldn't be linked, because being assured of something is not the same as it happening, and vice versa.

That was why I went with (D), because it had a similar distinction with "nominated for a reward" and "receives and award."

Could you explain why (D) is wrong, and why we are allowed to make a jump in reasoning within the stimulus's conclusion for (B) to be correct?

[Luke Haqq]

Hi ikim10!

You're right to be thrown off by that change in the stimulus. The first two sentences of the stimulus involve conditional reasoning that can be joined together:

Accepted Distributor buys Backers recoup

In other words, if the committee accepts a film, a distributor will then buy it, in which case backers are assured that they'll recoup their investment. We can draw an inference about this, namely:

Accepted Backers recoup

The third sentence is a Mistaken Negation of this. It reasons that if a film is not accepted, then backers won't recoup their investment. But it's possible that a film could not be accepted by the festival committee and backers still recoup their investment.

Answer choice (B) starts out the same as the stimulus--the first two sentences establish a chain of conditional statements:

Several stars Successful at box office Long run at theaters

This yields a similar inference:

Several stars Long run at theaters

The answer choice then similarly makes a Mistaken Negation--it assumes that because a given film does not have several stars, then it won't have a long run at theaters.

The second sentence makes answer choice (D) problematic. It moves from being "nominated" for an award in the first sentence to another sentence about "receiving" an award. Since these are different things, they don't allow us to connect these statements into a chain of causal reasoning.

[jcohen106]

Why is the Answer not C, is that not just the reverse of the prompt but still the same flaw
Prompt says /A -> /Recoup

C. DW -> DTA
/DTA -> /DW

[Chandler H]

Why is the Answer not C, is that not just the reverse of the prompt but still the same flaw
Prompt says /A -> /Recoup

C. DW -> DTA
/DTA -> /DW

Hi jcohen106,

You're partially right here! It is the reverse of the prompt, in that an assumption is mistakenly made that the film did well on video so it must have been directed by a talented artist.

However, this is a "pattern of reasoning" question, which means that we want every logical element to match up to the stimulus. In the stimulus, our mistaken logic looks like this:

If A B
If B C
Since A, C

On the other hand, answer choice (C)'s logic looks like this:

If A B
If B C
Since C, A

See how these are not the same?