PrepTest 146, Section 3, Question 26

What we’re looking for

Working the answers

• A

  Ownership and control don't make the technology financially worthless. They could help the studio retain the benefits if other films use it. This doesn't guarantee demand or repayment, but it supplies no reason to doubt the claimed opportunity to benefit from future use.

• B

  Curious audiences would help the film sell tickets. That makes recovering at least some of its cost more plausible, rather than less. We aren't told the audience guarantees a profit, but the direction of this information favors the director's confidence.

• C

  This is a real concern about ticket revenue, but the director has already offered a reason to expect recovery beyond the box office. The argument expressly says even an unpopular film could leave valuable technology for future productions. C says ticket sales probably won't cover the cost; it doesn't undermine the proposed way of recovering the rest. That makes it less damaging than an answer attacking the backup itself.

• D
  Correct

  In many past cases, a disappointing film was followed by abandonment of its new effects technology. That gives us a reason to question whether the backup remains valuable when it is most needed. If this film fails and its technology is also abandoned, the studio cannot count on future use to recover what the film didn't earn.

  D doesn't guarantee this particular technology will be abandoned. Historical examples needn't establish certainty to weaken the director's claim of little risk. They show that the possible use of new technology isn't a dependable safeguard against an unpopular film.

• E

  Lowering other films' production costs is a concrete benefit of reuse. The studio might recover value by spending less on later productions, even without selling or licensing the technology to someone else. That supports the idea that the investment could pay off beyond this film. It does not weaken it.