PrepTest 136

Incorrect. There's no statement in the stimulus that would allow an inference to be drawn about most Canadian films—we only learn about those that are shown at the LC Film Festival, which may be a very small number of the total.

Incorrect. Similar to (A), there's no statement strong enough to support an inference about most Canadian films, so we certainly can't conclude that most were shown at the LN Film Festival.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Facts

Question Type:
Must Be True

Stimulus Summary:
Film in LN Film Festival → Canadian film
Won prize at LN Film Festival-most-Won prize at international film festival

Answer Anticipation:
A conditional statement and a quantified one. Time to dust off our inference skills using those types of statements!

This set of statements, however, presents an interesting challenge—the two don't share a term. Normally, that would mean they can't be combined. However, there must be a valid combination—otherwise, we don't have a correct answer!

When there's a gap between the statements as we see here, there are sometimes connections between statements that are guaranteed based on logic/definitions that we can write in. Here, for instance, we can add in the following statement that must be true:
Won prize at LN Film Festival → Film in LN Film Festival
If something wins a prize at a festival, it must be in that festival—the simple act of being awarded a prize makes it a part of the festival.

Now that the statements are connected, we can check to see if we can make an inference (hint: it's a Must Be True question, so we can), and what that inference is.

If every film in the LN Film Festival is Canadian, then it must be the case that every film that won a prize at the LN Film Festival is Canadian. Since some of them went on to win prizes at international film festivals, it must be the case that some Canadian films won international prizes. Let's find that in the answers.

Answer Explanation:
Some of the films that won prizes at the LN Film Festival also won international prizes. Since all of those films were Canadian films, some of the international prizes went to Canadian films. This answer is supported by the stimulus.

Key Takeaway:
The LSAT has been throwing in more and more conditional logic questions that don't explicitly state a premise that must be true based on the details. These questions can feel like you're making an assumption, but if two things are necessarily connected, then it's not an assumption.

Incorrect. There's no discussion of films "shown" at international film festivals, so we can't draw an inference about them. While the films that won prizes at the international festivals must have been shown there, there are plenty of films shown that didn't win prizes, so there's no way to make an inference that some LN Film Festival prize-winning movies weren't shown internationally.

Incorrect. While this seems likely, there's no way to know that it's the case because we don't know much about the international prize winners—just that some of them were Canadian films shown at the LN Film Festival. It's possible, therefore, that they were all shown there.