PrepTest 120, Section 1, Question 9
Film historians have made two major criticisms of(71 more words not shown)
The conclusion of the argument(10 more words not shown)
- ATo avoid self-indulgence,(21 more words not shown)
- BIt is unjustified(16 more words not shown)
- CThe people who(20 more words not shown)
- DDepression-era filmmakers who(18 more words not shown)
- EIt cannot be(12 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Maybe audiences wanted an escape. A movie about carefree life on a private island could appeal to people who didn't want another reminder of economic hardship. That makes the filmmakers' pursuit of profit understandable.
But why couldn't the filmmakers want that escape too?
The author uses the audience's dreams to rule out the claim that the films self-indulgently reflected the filmmakers' dreams. Those desires might overlap. Giving customers exactly what they want could also let the creators indulge their own fantasies.
What we’re looking for
We're asked to make the conclusion follow. My first thought is to block that overlap: perhaps the filmmakers couldn't share the audience's desires. That would remove the possibility that the films satisfied both groups at once. Let's see whether an answer closes the gap. Keep the target narrow. We're rejecting the second criticism, not deciding whether films should criticize the economic system.
Working the answers
- A
This recommends economic criticism and leaving audiences to form their own aspirations. It doesn't establish that these filmmakers followed that advice, or that giving an audience its preferred escape rules out self-indulgence. Advice about avoiding the problem doesn't show that the filmmakers actually avoided it.
- B
This challenges a demand for criticism of the economic system—the first criticism. The conclusion rejects the second criticism, about self-indulgence. We could agree that filmmakers needn't criticize the economy and still think these films indulged their makers' dreams.
- C
The regular audience's satisfaction with the economy might help explain why a filmmaker avoided criticizing it. Again, that concerns the first criticism. It doesn't establish that the filmmakers weren't also indulging themselves while appealing to that audience.
- D
These filmmakers made movies with an eye to profit. D concerns filmmakers who did not make films for profit, so it gives us a rule about a different group. It also focuses on critical political and economic stances rather than the self-indulgence the conclusion denies.
- ECorrect
This directly supplies the needed rule: giving an audience what it most wants cannot be self-indulgent. The passage says these filmmakers did give audiences what they most wanted. Apply E and the self-indulgence charge cannot hold. We don't have to prove that the two groups had different dreams after all; E rules out the criticism based on the filmmakers' audience-pleasing behavior itself.
More Sufficient Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Sufficient Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.