Logical reasoning PrepTest 132 · Section 4 · Question 23

Incorrect. Since the stimulus establishes that we're on a ticking clock to save some of these films, this answer is too expansive in bringing up what will "ever" happen.

Incorrect. While the stimulus notes that the method is expensive, it also notes that it's a requirement, so whether it's the most or second-most expensive way of preserving them doesn't matter.

Incorrect. The conclusion is just that some films won't be preserved, so as long as there are enough left that they won't' all be transferred in time, it doesn't matter if 1%, 60% or 90% of them have already been transferred.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen with Necessary Premise

Stimulus Summary:
To preserve an old film, it must be transferred from nitrate to acetate. However, there's not enough time to transfer everything in nitrate to acetate, so some of Hollywood's earliest films won't be preserved.

Answer Anticipation:
The premises establish that there's not enough time to transfer all old films to acetate, so some of them are going to deteriorate before they can be transferred. However, who's to say which of those films are going to be selected to go through the process, and which will be allowed to deteriorate before they're transferred? The conclusion brings up the earliest Hollywood films, and it's possible that those were or will be among the first moved to acetate to preserve that early history. The argument assumes that a specific subset of movies in a broader group will be affected when the argument only establishes that some will be, and so it's flawed.

A necessary assumption for that flaw is that some of the earliest Hollywood movies haven't yet been transferred to acetate, or that they're not going to be ahead of them deteriorating.

Answer Explanation:
In order to conclude that some of these earliest films are at risk of deteriorating, we need to know that they haven't yet been transferred. If these oldest films have all already been preserved, then the argument falls apart.

Key Takeaway:
Pay attention to the "groups" being discussed! Here, the argument established things about old movies, and then concluded something about a subset—the earliest Hollywood movies. Those premises also discussed a consequence for some of the larger group, and thus there's no guarantee that the subgroup will be among those to suffer consequences. Whenever an argument jumps between groups, or jumps from a larger group to a subgroup (or vice versa), the argument is likely flawed because of it.

Incorrect. Those films would still be lost, and the stimulus isn't about preserving just the popular films.