PrepTest 148, Section 3, Question 5
Jenkins maintains that the movie Firepower was not(45 more words not shown)
The reasoning in the argument(5 more words not shown)
- Arejects an argument(13 more words not shown)
- Bconcludes from a(11 more words not shown)
- Cinfers that something(19 more words not shown)
- Doverlooks the possibility(14 more words not shown)
- Econcludes from the(21 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Maybe that wasn't what the director wanted. We can accept that Firepower produced antisocial behavior and still question whether the effect was intended. A director could make a movie hoping to entertain people, then be dismayed when viewers responded badly. Causing a result and wanting that result are different things.
The word 'many' doesn't settle the intention either. In a huge audience, even one percent could be many people; the remaining viewers might react quite differently. But whatever share was affected, the same problem remains: a consequence can be accidental.
What we’re looking for
For the flaw, focus on the author's move from the movie's effect to rejecting Jenkins's claim about its intended purpose. We aren't being asked to prove that Jenkins's own defense is airtight. We need to explain why the author's objection doesn't establish intent.
Working the answers
- A
The author doesn't dismiss Jenkins because Jenkins is biased. The offered reason is what happened to viewers after the movie. That fact may establish an effect without establishing intent, but it isn't an attack on the person supplying the argument.
- B
The author treats the movie's causal effect as a premise: it has clearly produced antisocial behavior. The conclusion concerns whether that effect was intended. We could grant the causal claim completely and the reasoning would still fail. This is not an inference from two things occurring together to one causing the other.
- C
A part-to-whole mistake would be something like saying one scene is confusing, so the entire movie must be confusing. The argument doesn't assign a property of a scene or a viewer to a larger whole. It uses an effect of the movie to infer the filmmaker's purpose. Those are different moves.
- D
This might make us question Jenkins's suggestion that the director's interest settles the intention. But it isn't a possibility the author rules out. The author rejects Jenkins's defense despite the stated interest in preventing antisocial behavior. The problem is that causing such behavior doesn't establish wanting it. We also aren't told that the director personally announced any intention; Jenkins is the one making the defense.
- ECorrect
This states the exact jump: the action had an effect, so the person must have intended that effect. The viewers' behavior could have been an unwelcome consequence of making the movie. Without something connecting that consequence to the director's purpose, the effect alone doesn't refute the claim that it was unintended.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.