PrepTest 141

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
A video game company sold the movie rights to their game. It was panned, and future sales went down. Therefore, it's rarely a smart move to sell movie rights to a video game.

Answer Anticipation:
While the StarQuanta/Nostroma example might prove that it's not always a good business move for a video game company to sell the movie rights to a video game, it's just one example, so without establishing that it's the more common outcome, it's a jump to conclude that this move is "rarely" the right move. You'd need more than one example to support that conclusion.

Additionally, the StarQuanta situation doesn't even prove that it was a bad business move to sell the film rights. It bases a causal conclusion—the bad film caused the sales of subsequent games to go down—based on a correlation.

Either of these flaws could be highlighted in the correct answer.

Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights the jump from the premises about a single example that isn't established as generally representative to a general conclusion about what's "rarely" a good idea. This is one of the flaws in the argument, so it's the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
Always note the strength of the conclusion. Jumps in strength are frequent on the LSAT, and they usually hint at the flaw being committed.

Incorrect. The only products are the Nostroma video games and the movie. The movie was established as being hated by both the critics and public, so there was no jump there. The first video game was popular with the public, but there's no information or inference drawn about how critics felt. The following games didn't sell as well, but that's not the same as being disliked by either critics or the public.

Incorrect. This answer describes a circular argument, and the conclusion here is based on an example, so it's not just a restatement of an earlier claim.

Incorrect. Assuming the movie version of Nostroma had similar content to the video game, the stimulus highlights an example of products with similar content but different popularity, not roughly equal popularity.

Incorrect. There's no sufficient/necessary/conditional language in the stimulus, so this answer describing an illegal reversal is incorrect.