PrepTest 153, Section 3, Question 1
Minh: This film director’s newest works are very(59 more words not shown)
The dialogue most strongly supports(22 more words not shown)
- AThey share many(5 more words not shown)
- BThey constitute evidence(7 more words not shown)
- CThey are nothing(8 more words not shown)
- DThey are less(5 more words not shown)
- EThey provide evidence(4 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Predictable doesn't necessarily mean bad. If I order my usual sandwich, I want it to taste like the sandwich I enjoyed last time. Getting exactly what I expected can be a good thing. So when Minh calls these movies predictable, I'm waiting to hear why that is a problem.
“Pillaging” and “diminishing returns” answer that question. Minh thinks the director keeps taking from earlier movies and getting worse results. He isn't merely observing that the films have things in common. He is using that repetition to criticize the director's creativity.
Natalie pushes back. Does she deny the similarity? No—she calls it “startling sameness.” Her point is that working with familiar elements can still produce a strong, original movie. I want to ask how the director does that. Perhaps the creativity lies in what he does with the elements, rather than in finding completely new ones. Natalie doesn't give us the details, but we can understand the distinction she is drawing.
What we’re looking for
At this point I'd expect a question about their disagreement: is the director still being creative? But the stem asks what they agree about. That changes our job. Put their competing evaluations aside and find the observation they both accept. Both see the similarities; one treats them as a failure, while the other defends what the director makes from them.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
Minh describes repetitions of earlier films, and Natalie acknowledges the same core elements. Both therefore accept that the new films share many features with the old ones. We don't have to decide which speaker has the better opinion of the director to identify that common ground.
- B
Minh uses this description, but Natalie disputes the criticism behind it. She sees creative work with familiar material, not merely a director raiding his past successes. Sharing elements is the agreed observation; 'pillaging' adds Minh's negative judgment.
- C
'Nothing more' is the problem. Natalie thinks there is something more: the director creates strong, original works from those familiar elements. Minh's description of simple repetition cannot serve as their point of agreement.
- D
Minh's criticism may suggest this comparison, but Natalie does not rank the originality of the new films against that of the earlier films. Calling the new works original does not tell us whether she considers them equally original, more original, or less original. We need both speakers to support the comparison, and they do not.
- E
Natalie thinks the new films demonstrate creativity. Minh's criticism points the other way. This fits the disagreement I initially expected, but it does not answer the agreement question we actually have.
More Disagreement questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Disagreement questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.