Logical reasoning PrepTest 157 · Section 3 · Question 19

This answer choice's conclusion resembles the passage's conclusion that "this film's financial backers will not recoup their investment." Like that conclusion, this answer choice's conclusion is a factual "NOT" claim. So, we can diagram these premises to see if the rest of the argument lines up with the passage's:

P1: Good story → Critics praise

P2: Critics praise → Good box office

P3: NOT good box office

Conclusion: NOT good story

Unlike the argument in the passage, this argument is valid. If we connect P1 and P2, we can reach the conclusion "Good story → Good box office." The flipside of that is, "NOT good box office → NOT good story. The conclusion, therefore, applies the flipside. Because the film does not have a good box office, we can validly conclude that it doesn't have a good story either. Since this argument is valid, we can eliminate it.

This answer choice's conclusion resembles the passage's conclusion that "this film's financial backers will not recoup their investment." Like that conclusion, this answer choice's conclusion is a factual "NOT" claim. So, we can diagram these premises to see if the rest of the argument lines up with the passage's (note the the second premise is a "universal" statement, as we can translate it to "all box office successes ..." without altering the meaning of the statement):

P1: Several stars → Good box office

P2: Good box office → Long run

P3: NOT several stars

Conclusion: NOT long run

This matches the flaw in the passage's argument. Like the passage, we can connect P1 and P2 to conclude, "Several stars → Long run." This answer choice's conclusion, however, assumes that if the film does not have several stars, it will not have a long run at the box office. So, like the passage, this is an example of the inverse flaw/illegal negation/denied-but-didn't-flip flaw.

Because this answer choice commits the same flaw as the passage, we can select it and advance straight to the following question.

This answer choice's conclusion doesn't resemble the passage's conclusion that "this film's financial backers will not recoup their investment." Although this answer choice's conclusion is also a factual claim, it isn't a "NOT" claim. That's enough to table this answer choice for now and move on to the next one.

If we did diagram this answer choice's argument, here's what we'd get:

P1: Talented director → Critics praise

P2: Critics praise → Do well on video

P3: Do well on video

Conclusion: Talented director

This isn't quite the same flaw as the passage. If we connect P1 and P2, we can reach the conclusion "Talented director → Do well on video." This answer choice's conclusion, however, assumes that if the film does well on video, then it must have a talented director. So, unlike the passage, this is an example of the converse flaw/illegal reversal/flipped-but-didn't-deny flaw.

Because this answer choice commits a slightly different flaw than the passage, we can cross it off.

This answer choice's conclusion resembles the passage's conclusion that "this film's financial backers will not recoup their investment." Like that conclusion, this answer choice's conclusion is a factual "NOT" claim. So, we can diagram these premises to see if the rest of the argument lines up with the passage's:

P1: Box office success → Star nominated

P2: Star receives award → Do well on video

P3: NOT star nominated

Conclusion: NOT do well on video

This doesn't match the flaw in teh passage's argument. In the passage, we could connect P1 and P2. In this argument, we cannot. A star being nominated for an award doesn't mean that the star receives the award (ask Glenn Close about that one). Moreover, unlike the passage, the factual premise doesn't deny the P1's "if" condition — it denies P1's "then" condition. Although this argument is flawed, it commits more flaws than the passage, allowing us to eliminate it.

This answer choice's conclusion doesn't resemble the passage's conclusion that "this film's financial backers will not recoup their investment." Although this answer choice's conclusion is also a factual claim, it isn't a "NOT" claim. That's enough to table this answer choice for now and review any answer choice we haven't already eliminated.

If we did diagram this answer choice's argument, here's what we'd get:

P1: Big budget → Heavily promoted

P2: Heavily promoted → Released all over

P3: Big budget

Conclusion: Released all over

Unlike the argument in the passage, this argument is valid. If we connect P1 and P2, we can reach the conclusion "Big budget → Released all over." The conclusion, therefore, applies that conclusion. Because the film has a big budget, we can validly conclude that it will be released all over the country at once. Since this argument is valid, we can eliminate it.