PrepTest 145

[lcid:3679] Prep Test 145 LSAT — Logical Reasoning — S4 Logical reasoning

Question prompt

Film director: It's inaccurate Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: B

The notes below walk through why it fits the stem and how to eliminate the rest.

Question Type

Strengthen Questions

Answer choices

  1. A
    The film director's film Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited
    Incorrect. If anything, this presents an alternative explanation strongly related to the opposing explanation, so it doesn't support the explanation that it was competition instead of reviews that led to the poor attendance.
  2. B
    Filmgoers seldom see more Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B matches the stem
    Correct. Argument or Facts:
    Argument

    Valid or Flawed:
    Flawed

    Question Type:
    Strengthen

    Stimulus Summary:
    Phenomenon Ð A movie had a small opening-weekend audience
    Opposing explanation Ð One or two bad reviews caused people to stay away
    Director's explanation Ð The film appeals to a specific type of filmgoer and several films that appealed to them all opened that weekend

    Answer Anticipation:
    This argument sets up a phenomenon (a small opening weekend for a film) and then argues between two competing explanations for why that phenomenon happened. Some might argue that it was the bad reviews, but the Director chalks it up to a small built-in audience and a lot of competition.

    We're tasked with strengthening the latter—that it was because of competition and not bad reviews that her movie had such a small opening weekend. As such, anything that suggests people were seeing other movies instead of her movie will serve to strengthen that explanation. That's a wide open anticipation, so let's stay flexible as we analyze the answers.

    Answer Explanation:
    This answer does support the Director's explanation. She argues that her movie had a small audience because there was competition. If filmgoers almost never see more than one film in a weekend, then competition would naturally lower the viewership of any competing movie—people would pick one option and skip the others.

    Key Takeaway:
    Phenomenon/explanation arguments are generally about thinking through alternatives, but here the stimulus presented two and asked us to strengthen one. When that happens, the correct answer can deal with an alternative, but it will generally end up more directly dealing with the explanation the question stem asks about.
  3. C
    The total number of Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited
    Incorrect. If anything, this suggests that there was a large enough audience to "go around" and see both competing films and the Director's.
  4. D
    Each of the other Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited
    Incorrect. This answer, if anything, supports the explanation that reviews played a part if the other movies had larger audiences than the Director's. This answer requires an assumption and, even then, undermines the Director's explanation, so it's incorrect.
  5. E
    Most filmgoers are drawn Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited
    Incorrect. This answer is trying to get you to select it by making you think that it's bringing up even more competition—it wasn't just the other films of the same type, but other films not of the same type. However, the argument already established that the Director's film had a limited audience and stiff competition, so this doesn't add anything new.

What this tests

Discussion