Logical reasoning PrepTest 120 · Section 1 · Question 9

Incorrect. The argument is about whether a set of films is self-indulgent, not how filmmakers can avoid making a self-indulgent film.

Incorrect. This answer is about the first criticism, but as the conclusion is about the second criticism, this answer is out of scope.

Incorrect. Similar to (B), this answer brings up the economic status quo, which was a part of the first criticism, not the second criticism which is what the conclusion is about.

Incorrect. Another answer that's about the first criticism, not the second! Which means another answer that is incorrect.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen with Sufficient Premise

Stimulus Summary:
Criticism of Depression-era filmmakers:
(1) Didn't criticism economic status quo enough
(2) Self-indulgently created films of their own dreams

But these filmmakers made movies to make money, which meant providing audiences what they wanted, so criticism #2 must be wrong.

Answer Anticipation:
As only the second criticism is relevant to the argument/conclusion, we should rephrase the argument so that we're only considering relevant information. The shortened argument is:
Critics say that Depression-era filmmakers self-indulgently made films about their own dreams, but these films provided audiences what they wanted, so the critics are wrong.

So the argument treats the films giving audiences what they want as showing that the criticism is wrong. In order for that to be true, giving film audiences what they want would need to be incompatible with filmmakers being self-indulgent in making films about their own dreams.

The correct answer, then, should establish this incompatibility:
If a filmmaker makes a film that gives the audience what they want, then it can't be self-indulgent.

Answer Explanation:
This answer establishes the incompatibility that we anticipated would show up in the correct answer. The Depression-era films gave the audiences what they wanted. If that means that they couldn't be self-indulgent, then the second criticism is wrong and the conclusion is valid. This answer is therefore correct.

Key Takeaway:
In Strengthen with Sufficient Premise questions, if you can pare down the argument to remove extraneous information, do so! It'll make spotting the gap a lot easier.