PrepTest 118, Section 1, Question 13
If the play were successful, it would be(33 more words not shown)
The argument's reasoning is flawed(3 more words not shown)
- Afails to draw(27 more words not shown)
- Bfails to explain(8 more words not shown)
- Cequates the play's(6 more words not shown)
- Dpresumes, without providing(22 more words not shown)
- Efails to recognize(28 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Not successful doesn't mean no movie. Success is one way to get an adaptation or a festival revival, but the argument never says it's the only way.
The opening rule tells us what happens if the play succeeds. Once we learn it didn't succeed, that rule stops deciding the outcome for us. The play might still be adapted for some other reason. It might be revived. It might get neither opportunity. We haven't been told what governs an unsuccessful play's future.
What we’re looking for
The flaw question asks us to identify the mistake in ruling both outcomes out. I'd look for an answer saying the author has treated one route to those outcomes as though every route required success. We don't have to prove that an adaptation will happen; we just need to see why the author hasn't proved that it won't.
Working the answers
- A
We can't conclude that the play won't get both opportunities either. The rule says success would bring an adaptation or a revival; it says nothing excluding either or both when the play fails. Replacing “neither” with “not both” would still impose a restriction that the premises don't support.
- B
We can accept that the play is unsuccessful without knowing whether that means bad ticket sales, disappointing reviews, or something else. The missing information concerns whether success is required for the two later opportunities. Defining the particular kind of failure doesn't repair that gap.
- C
The argument never separates artistic worth from commercial success and then treats them as identical. It simply describes the play as unsuccessful. We shouldn't supply two meanings and accuse the author of confusing them when no such comparison appears.
- D
Other avenues aren't what the conclusion rules out. The play might be performed at a small local theater, for instance, without becoming a movie or appearing at the Decade Festival. Allowing that third possibility wouldn't challenge the specific claim about the two named outcomes. We need another way to reach those outcomes, not an entirely different outcome.
- ECorrect
In ordinary language, missing one route doesn't close every route. Success would be enough to produce a movie or revival, but something else might also be enough. Imagine a wealthy fan who wants to finance a film adaptation despite the play's poor reception. That's a possible alternative reason, not a fact we're adding. The argument never rules such alternatives out, so it cannot conclude that neither opportunity will occur.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.