A
presumes, without providing justification, that effectiveness of different practitioners in bringing about major improvement cannot differ at all if their effectiveness in bringing about any improvement does not differ
B
provides no information about the kinds of injuries that require short-term as opposed to long-term treatment
C
overlooks the possibility that patients are more strongly biased to report favorably on one of the two types of medical professionals than on the other
D
fails to indicate whether the number of patients surveyed who saw a general practitioner was equal to the number who saw a specialist
E
overlooks the possibility that specialists and general practitioners each tend to excel at treating a different type of injury
This is a Flaw/Descriptive Weakening question.
This is a causal argument with phenomenon-premises and a hypothesis-conclusion. The first premise reveals that for physical therapy patients that received less than six weeks of treatment, around a third showed major improvement. This result was the same regardless of whether the treatment was by a generalist or specialist. The second premise reveals a similar phenomenon for longer treatment. This time, around half showed major improvement. Again, the result was the same regardless of whether the treatment was by a generalist or specialist.
So those are all the facts we have. That’s collectively the “phenomenon.” What causal conclusion can be drawn? Well, not much. Certainly not the conclusion actually drawn: the choice between a generalist and specialist makes no difference.
Let’s say you wanted to test this hypothesis. You think that the choice between a generalist and specialist makes no difference. How would you go about designing your (ideal) experiment? I put “ideal” in parentheses because it really doesn’t have to be ideal. It just has to be better than the data in the stimulus and that’s a low bar. So, you’d collect a ton of people prescribed less than six weeks of physical therapy. Then you’d randomly assign them to specialists and generalists. Then you wait out the six weeks and you measure to see what percentage in each group experienced major improvement. If it turns out that about a third experienced major improvement in either group, then that’s good evidence that the choice between generalist and specialist has no causal power. (And then you do it all over again for the long-term treatment.) But notice how different that is from what actually happened in the stimulus. The stimulus presented observational data, not experimental data. That means there were no controls. Specifically, there were no controls for self-selection. The assignment to generalist or specialist was not random. People chose whether to see a generalist or a specialist and presumably with good reason! What reason? Maybe because generalists and specialists are better suited to treat different kinds of injuries.
This is exactly what Correct Answer Choice (E) points out. This argument is vulnerable because it overlooked the possibility that generalists and specialists each excel at treating a different type of injury. (E) is subtle in exposing the flawed logic of the argument. I’m pretty blunt so let me shine a spotlight on this error with the following argument.
Records reveal that of patients who received heart surgery, about 75% regained full cardiovascular functions one month post operation regardless of whether they received a double bypass or a quadruple bypass surgery. Therefore the choice of a double or quadruple bypass will not affect one’s chances of regaining full cardiovascular function.
Is the flaw glaring now? Imagine telling the patient who’s scheduled for a quadruple bypass that actually, you know what, you don’t need four unclogged arteries, let’s just clear up two of them and you’ll be fine.
Answer Choice (D) is very attractive. It claims that the reasoning is vulnerable because the argument failed to indicate whether the number of patients surveyed who saw a generalist was equivalent to the number who saw a specialist. While (D) is descriptively accurate, the argument’s failure to indicate isn’t where the argument is weak. To see this, imagine if we supplied an additional premise that fixed this “problem” by indicating what (D) wants. So the same argument, but now an additional premise indicates that the numbers were equal. Voila, the conclusion follows! Just kidding. The argument is still garbage for all the reasons discussed above.
If (D) was attractive to you, perhaps you thought that experiments require equal group sizes? First, note that (D) isn’t talking about an experiment (because the stimulus isn’t an experiment). Second, it’s not true that equal sizes are a requirement for experiments. It’s nice to have (for statistical reasons) but it’s not necessary. I think you can intuitively understand this just by imagining an experiment where one group was slightly larger than the other, say 60/40. Your results will still be fine as long as you avoid the other experimental pitfalls (random assignment, blinding, etc.).
Answer Choice (A) is also attractive though for a different reason. (A) is attractive mainly because it’s gibberish but fancy-sounding gibberish. It claims that the argument is vulnerable because it assumes (without warrant) that if the effectiveness of different practitioners in bringing about any (which includes minor) improvement does not differ, then their effectiveness in bringing about major improvement cannot differ. What? No, the argument makes no such assumption. The argument does not assume there is no difference in how effective generalists and specialists are with respect to bringing about minor improvements.
Answer Choice (B) claims that the argument provides no information about the kinds of injuries that require short-term versus long-term treatment. Okay, this is descriptively accurate but nobody cares because this isn’t why the argument is weak. I think (B) could have been right had the argument been edited just a little. Like this: Records reveal that regardless of whether patients receive short-term (six weeks) or long-term treatment, about 50% experience major improvements within six weeks. Therefore, the choice between short- or long-term will not affect one’s chances of major improvement. This argument is weak because it assumed that the assignment was random whereas it almost certainly was not. It almost certainly was the case that there was self-selection determining who got short-term and who got long-term. And that’s because doctors diagnose and prescribe proportional treatment. One way to describe this weakness is to say that the argument should have provided information about the kinds of injuries that require short-term as opposed to long-term treatment. That information would have most likely revealed that it’s the more severe injuries that require long-term treatment.
Answer Choice (C) claims that the argument overlooks the possibility that patients are more strongly biased to report favorably on one of the two types of medical professionals than on the other. (C) thinks the weakness in the argument has to do with whether the “one third” and “one half” major improvement results are believable. This kind of objection, the “wait, but are you sure your data maps onto reality?” is more powerful in arguments that rely on survey results. It’s not clear this is such an argument. The premises say, “records reveal.” What kind of records? How was the data collected? Did we ask the patients if they showed major improvement? Or did we simply measure their physical abilities to determine major improvement? If the latter, then (C) completely misses the mark for it assumes the data came from subjective reports. If we patch this issue up, then (C) at best identifies a minor issue in the argument. While it’s true that the argument does assume that these records reflect reality, the argument also failed to account for self-selection. That second issue is the major one because if that were fixed, the argument would improve dramatically whereas if we fixed the “records reflect reality” issue, the argument would still be flawed.
This is a Parallel Flawed question.
The argument opens with premises that Devan has never been kind nor offered help nor companionship to me. These omissions are taken to amount to a failure to meet the basic requirements of friendship. Okay, so we can conclude that Devan is not the author’s friend.
But the author takes it a step further to conclude that Devan is his enemy.
What kind of flaw is this? False dichotomy. The author assumes that one can only be a friend or an enemy and not both. But the true dichotomy is friend or not friend. And not friend isn’t equivalent to enemy. Not friend is a super-set that contains enemy but it also contains acquaintances, colleagues, strangers, etc.
Answer Choice (A) begins by laying out necessary conditions for being an officer of this club. There are three disjunctive necessary conditions. One must either be a member of two years standing, or a committee member, or have special qualifications. Evelyn fails two of the three conditions. She has been a member for only one year and she is not a committee member. Okay, but does she also fail the third condition? Does she have special qualifications? The argument is silent. It assumes she doesn’t and on that assumption draws the conclusion that Evelyn cannot be an officer. This is poor reasoning but it’s not the same poor reasoning in the stimulus. There’s no false dichotomy.
Answer Choice (B) begins by laying out necessary conditions for a plant to thrive. There are two conjunctive necessary conditions. The plant must be located in a sunny spot and be watered regularly. The argument continues by failing one necessary condition. This spot isn’t sunny. Okay, that’s enough to fail the entire conjunctive necessary condition. We can validly draw the conclusion that this plant cannot be thriving. (B) attempts to fail the other necessary condition but does a bad job of it. The author didn’t regularly water this plant regularly. But that doesn’t mean the plant wasn’t watered regularly. Whose plant is it? Is it true that if the author didn’t water it, then no one watered it? The argument merely assumes so. But thankfully, we don’t care, since the necessary condition has been failed already.
Okay, so at this point, (B) is looking decent. The proper conclusion should be /thriving just like how the proper conclusion in the stimulus should be /friend. A false dichotomy for /thriving is “dead” or “dying.” That’s a false dichotomy because the true dichotomy for /thriving is a super-set that contains “dead” or “dying” or “just limping along” or “doing pretty good,” etc. There’s a whole spectrum of possibilities.
But the actual conclusion is “it explains why this plant is not as healthy as it should be.” That’s not a well-supported conclusion but for a different reason. This conclusion requires the assumption that the plant being “as healthy as it should be” means that it should be thriving. But thriving is a pretty high standard. (B) doesn’t give us any reason to believe that should be the standard.
Correct Answer Choice (C) opens with the premise that this book has been widely reviewed and hasn’t received even one hostile review. From that premise, (C) concludes that all the critics have loved this book. This is the false dichotomy flaw. The author assumes that one can only be hostile to or love the book and not both. But the true dichotomy is hostile to or not hostile. And not hostile isn’t equivalent to love. Not hostile is a super-set that contains love but it also contains indifference, like (not love), and other gradations of feelings.
Answer Choice (D) begins with a conditional that a decision in favor of developing the northern border of the town logically implies that it would be equally acceptable to develop the southern, eastern, or western borders. (D) concludes that it’s possible that at least one of the S, E, or W borders will also be developed. This is a strange argument. The premise has nothing to do with the conclusion. Just because it would be acceptable to develop doesn’t mean that development will take place. Moreover, we don’t even know if a decision in favor of developing the northern border has been reached.
Answer Choice (E) begins with a conditional that if everyone were an author, poet, or academic, then society would come to a halt. (E) then fails the sufficient condition. Few people are poets, authors, or academics. (E) then concludes that society will not come to a halt. This is sufficiency-necessity confusion. It’s the oldest flaw in the book but it’s not the flaw of false dichotomy.
This is a Parallel Method of Reasoning question.
The stimulus states a conditional rule: complete-24 and thesis → elig-masters
Then it applies the rule to one particular person, Roger: complete-24R and /elig-mastersR
The /elig-mastersR contraposes on the conditional, which implies that for Roger, either he /complete-24 or he /thesis. But we’re already told that he complete-24, therefore it must be true that he /thesis.
All together, the argument looks like this:
- complete-24 and thesis → elig-masters
- complete-24R and /elig-mastersR
- ________________________________________________
- /thesisR
Correct Answer Choice (A)
- mayor-app and council-app → open
- /open and council-app
- ________________________________________________
- /mayor-app
Answer Choice (B) has two problems.
- sci-fic → love or hate
This is the first problem. We need two jointly sufficient conditions. The second problem is that it’s not even clear if the “hate” condition is failed. (B) says, “I do not hate the movie I am watching now.” That suggests the author is reporting to us mid-movie. Like, he’s not even done with the movie yet. So, it’s possible that he changes his mind. The conclusion reinforces this with “probably.”
Answer Choice (C)
- govt-bought or other-bought → improve
- /improve
- ________________________________________________
- /govt-bought and /other-bought
This argument is valid but doesn’t match the form in the stimulus.
Answer Choice (D)
- sale → used or paperback
- saleB
- ________________________________________________
- /paperbackB → usedB
This argument is valid but doesn’t match the form in the stimulus.
Answer Choice (E)
- owe → higher or bankruptcy
- owe and /want-bankruptcy
- ________________________________________________
- higher
This argument doesn’t match the form in the stimulus. It’s also not valid because not wanting to declare bankruptcy isn’t the same as not declaring bankruptcy.
A
It is offered in support of the implicit conclusion that a legal system needs a significant number of police officers.
B
It is the conclusion of the argument.
C
It is a premise of the argument.
D
It is an intermediate conclusion.
E
It is the view that the argument as a whole is designed to discredit.
A
It is a premise offered in support of the claim that contaminated water currently presents a much more widespread threat to the community than does ozone.
B
It is a premise offered in support of the claim that there is unlikely to be a widespread, grassroots effort for new, more restrictive air pollution controls at this time.
C
It is used to explain the current public awareness of the severity of the problem of contaminated water.
D
It is presented as indisputable evidence that ozone can be dangerous for severe asthmatics even if found in levels much lower than maximum levels permitted by law.
E
It is the main conclusion drawn in the argument.
A
It is the main conclusion drawn in the argument.
B
It points up by example a contrast from which the conclusion is drawn.
C
It is a mere rhetorical flourish having no logical relation to the argument’s conclusion.
D
It is a premise that guarantees the truth of the argument’s conclusion.
E
It is an ancillary conclusion drawn in the argument.
This is an NA question.
The argument starts with a causal premise. There are at least two causes for the “troubles from which a patient seeks relief through psychotherapy.” One cause is “internal: [stimulus doesn’t tell us what].” The other is external: the patient’s relationship with other people.
The argument concludes that to help a patient heal, the psychotherapist must focus on the need for positive change in those relationships.
Okay, so the argument assumes that because the relationship is a partial cause of the problem, solving the problem requires working on that cause.
Answer Choice (C) sounds like it’s addressing that link. It tells us that those patients who do change their relationships will consequently find relief from at least some of their troubles. If it’s the right kind of change, then this strengthens the argument. (C) shows that improving the relationship does produce positive effects. That makes the conclusion more plausible. But (C) isn’t necessary. Think about how the conclusion could still be true even if (C) were false. First, what would it mean for (C) to be false? It would mean that it’s possible for a patient who changed their relationships with other people to find no relief at all. How can the conclusion still be true, i.e., how can we still require therapists to focus on the need for positive change in the patient’s relationships? Because the change in (C) didn’t reveal direction. That means the change could be positive or negative. Clearly, if the change is in the negative direction, the therapist would just tell them that they did it wrong. But even if the change was in the positive direction, there’s no reason to assume that all positive changes are equal. Some positive changes to the relationship might not yield relief. The therapist would still have room to say that yes, you made positive changes in your relationship, which is good, but the kind of positive change that I want to help you make is different. And it’s those kinds of positive changes that will help you heal.
Correct Answer Choice (D) doesn’t have any of these issues. (D) starts with the therapists, not the patients. (D) says that no therapist can help a patient heal solely by addressing the internal causes of the patient’s troubles. This is absolutely necessary. (D) protects the assumption we identified above, that because relationships contribute to the problem, they must be a part of the solution. Imagine if (D) were false. That means a therapist can help a patient heal solely by focusing on the internal causes. This is incompatible with a requirement to have the therapist focus on the external (relationship) causes. If (D) were false, then the premises lose all their supportive power. We don’t care that some of the causes are external because we can disregard them yet solve the problem anyway.
Answer Choice (A) lays out a necessary condition for therapists to help change their patients’ relationships. (A) says that it requires those patients to focus on “other people’s troubles.” Okay, why do we need to assume this? What if it’s possible for therapists to help change their patients’ relationships without the patients having to focus on other people’s troubles? That would seem to be just fine with the argument.
Answer Choice (B) says that if a therapist helps change a patient’s relationships, then there must be at least some patients who won’t be healed. What, why? Why must there be at least one patient who doesn’t improve? This cuts against what the argument is saying. Perhaps (B) wanted to say if a therapist helps change a patient’s relationships, then there must be at least some patients who would be healed? Even then, I don’t think this would be required since the conclusion claims the positive change in the relationship to be a necessary condition of healing whereas this edited version of (B) is claiming the positive change to be a sufficient condition.
Answer Choice (E) says that if a therapist helps a patient focus on the set of troubles that are purely internal, then relief will be achieved. This is also unnecessary. First, notice that this refuses to accept the premise. The premise already claimed that the troubles from which patients seek relief are not purely internal. Second, we do not need to assume that a strategy that ignores external (relationship) causes will be successful.
This is an NA question.
The stimulus starts with OPA. Many scientists hypothesize that there’s a “light-absorbing medium” because the existence of a light-absorbing medium would explain why other star systems are only dimly visible from Earth. With the word “but,” the author signals the transition from context to argument. The author opens with the conclusion that there’s no reason to believe that the light-absorbing medium hypothesis is correct. Okay, why? Because the low visibility of other star systems is already fully explained by the general theory of relativity.
What assumption is required? If you already see it, then you can go into hunt mode but I’ll proceed from here as if you don’t and use POE.
Answer Choice (A) says that the low visibility of other star systems wouldn’t be adequately explained by the existence of a light-absorbing medium. So basically (A) contradicts other people’s premise. OPP said that the medium’s existence would explain but (A) says it wouldn’t. This isn’t necessary. In general, if you want to weaken someone else’s argument, you don’t have to contradict their premises. You could, but it’s not a requirement.
Answer Choice (B) says that light-absorbing medium hypothesis requires it to adequately explain the low visibility of other star systems. This is also unnecessary. (B) seems to think that the argument is different from what it actually is. If the argument had been the following, then (B) would be right.
Premise: light-absorbing medium hypothesis fails to adequately explain the low visibility of other star systems
Conclusion: light-absorbing medium hypothesis is false
This is the argument that (B) has in mind. But the actual argument is nothing like this. The premise is different and so is the conclusion. The conclusion in the actual argument isn’t that the hypothesis is false; rather, it’s just that there’s no reason to believe that it’s true. This is a distinction that Flaw questions repeatedly test. The author is concluding that OPA failed to give good reasons for the hypothesis, not that the hypothesis is false. The premise is also different. The actual premise is that the phenomenon of low visibility is already explained by some other theory, not that the OPA hypothesis fails to adequately explain the phenomenon.
Answer Choice (C) is similar to (B). It seems to think that the argument is something else. (C) says that if there’s some phenomenon that a hypothesis adequately accounts for and that is not adequately accounted for by an existing theory, then that hypothesis is likely to be correct. If the argument had been the following, then (C) would be right.
Premise: low visibility of other star systems is a phenomenon that existing theory can’t adequately account for but is adequately accounted for by the light-absorbing medium hypothesis
Conclusion: light-absorbing medium hypothesis is likely correct
The actual premise in the argument is just the opposite. It’s saying that an existing theory does adequately account for the phenomenon. The actual conclusion is also pushing in the opposite direction.
Answer Choice (D) says that most proponents of the light-absorbing medium hypothesis accept the general theory of relativity. That’s not necessary. It’s fine for the argument if OPA rejects the general theory of relativity. The argument is just as strong as it ever was.
Correct Answer Choice (E) says that the general theory of relativity does not depend on the light-absorbing medium hypothesis. Yeah, that must be true. If the general theory did depend on the hypothesis, then the argument would fall apart. There would be reason to believe that the hypothesis is correct.
A
appealing to the ambiguity of a word in an attempt to show that a correlation is universal
B
appealing to a universal psychological generalization in an attempt to support a claim about the use of gestures
C
citing a psychological fact to try to reconcile a generalization with apparently disconfirming evidence
D
advocating an explanation for a phenomenon by attempting to demonstrate that other possible explanations are implausible
E
offering a reason for believing that a widely accepted generalization requires still more supporting evidence
This is a Method of Reasoning question.
The argument is pretty abstract which is a big reason why this question is difficult. It starts with other people’s position (OPP). Some researchers claim that people tend to gesture more when they speak about what would typically be considered physical concepts than abstract ones. Okay, so according to these researchers, someone speaking about cats and dogs will tend to gesture more than when speaking about prime numbers. That sounds plausible, I guess.
Now the author transitions to her argument. She opens with her conclusion that to point out that such a correlation (that’s OPP, the correlation between gesture and physical concepts) is far from universal is insufficient to reject OPP. In other words, pointing out exceptions to the correlation isn’t enough to reject the correlation. That also sounds right. In general, a correlation isn’t ironclad. There will be nonconforming exceptions. That’s my reasoning, not the author’s. Before we get to the author’s premise, note that the author is actually defending OPP! Is it Christmas in July? What is happening? The author’s conclusion is basically “Here’s one ineffective line of attack on OPP. You can’t just point out that the correlation isn’t universal and think that constitutes a successful attack on the correlation.”
Okay, now that we’ve gotten over the shock, what is her premise? How does she support that conclusion? “Because” some people perceive words like “comprehension” as a physical action like grasping something, whereas others perceive it as an abstract action like a state of understanding. Alright, that works. She’s saying you can’t attack OPP by pointing out apparent counterexamples because it’s not clear that they even are counterexamples. Take “comprehension,” for instance. Someone gestures a lot when talking about comprehension, whereas someone else gestures a little. Is that a counterexample to the correlation that gesture goes with physical concepts? Well, not necessarily because it could be that the person gesturing a lot perceives “comprehension” as a physical act, whereas a person not gesturing much perceives “comprehension” as an abstract act. In that case, this would fit with the correlation.
Let’s look at the answers now.
Answer Choice (A) can be analyzed piecemeal by looking at the conclusion and premise descriptors separately. (A) says the argument “appeals to X in an attempt to show Y.” We appeal to premises to show conclusions, not the other way around. So the first part is the premise descriptor and the second part the conclusion descriptor. Is there an appeal to the ambiguity of a word in the premise? Yes. “Comprehension” is the word. And it’s ambiguous whether that’s perceived as a physical or abstract concept. Great, let’s now look at the conclusion descriptor. “In an attempt to show that a correlation is universal.” But that’s wrong. The author’s conclusion isn’t trying to show that the correlation is universal. She’s just fending off one particular attack on it being universal. There’s a difference between affirmatively proving a position, which she’s not doing here, and pointing out that a class of arguments is weak, which she is doing here.
Answer Choice (B) can also be analyzed piecemeal. The premise descriptor says that the argument “appeals to a universal psychological generalization.” But that’s not an accurate description of the premise. If anything, the premise is a rejection of a universal psychological generalization. The premise declares that some people perceive a word one way and others another. The only part of the stimulus that might be accurately characterized as a universal psychological generalization is OPP. That’s enough to eliminate (B). The conclusion descriptor says, “in an attempt to support a claim about the use of gestures.” That’s also an inaccurate description. The conclusion is that one claim isn’t powerful enough to reject another claim.
Correct Answer Choice (C) can also be analyzed piecemeal. (C) says the argument “cites X to try to show Y.” We cite premises to reach conclusions, so the first part is the premise descriptor and the second part the conclusion descriptor. The premise descriptor says, “citing a psychological fact.” Yes, that’s true. The psychological fact cited is that people perceive words like “comprehension” differently. The conclusion descriptor says, “to try to reconcile a generalization with apparently disconfirming evidence.” That’s also true. That’s not the most direct description of the conclusion but that’s certainly the underlying reasoning. The reason why the author says this particular line of attack on OPP fails is because what looks like disconfirming evidence (the variable rates of gestures with the word “comprehension”) may be reconciled with the generalization (the correlation) by realizing that people perceive the word differently.
Answer Choice (D) can also be analyzed piecemeal. (D) says the argument “advocates X by attempting to demonstrate that Y.” We advocate conclusions so the first part is the conclusion descriptor and the second part the premise descriptor. But the conclusion descriptor is inaccurate. The author’s conclusion isn’t an explanation of a phenomenon. Her premise, on the other hand, can be viewed as an explanation of a phenomenon. Her premise explains why there’s inconsistency between gesturing and articulations of certain words like “comprehension.” The explanation is that people perceive those kinds of words differently. Yet (D) describes that premise inaccurately as “attempting to demonstrate that other possible explanations are implausible.”
Answer Choice (E) says the argument offers a reason for believing that a widely accepted generalization requires still more supporting evidence. First of all, what’s “widely accepted generalization”? The correlation claimed by “some researchers”? There’s no evidence that that’s widely accepted. Already inaccurate. Second, the author isn’t arguing for the claim that the correlation requires more supporting evidence. Rather, as already discussed, the author is just protecting that correlation from one particular mode of attack.
Because independent filmmakers need to make profits, which influences the artistic decisions made in creating most independent films.
To go further, we can anticipate a more specific connection between the premise and conclusion. The premise tells us that most independent films involve artistic decisions that are influenced by the need for profits. To make the argument valid, we want to show that this quality — having artistic decisions influenced by the need for profits — implies a lack of absolute integrity as an artwork.
A
A creation has absolute integrity as a work of art if the artistic decisions made in creating it were unaffected by the need to make profits.
B
If any of the artistic decisions made in creating something were affected by the need to make profits, then that creation does not have absolute integrity as a work of art.
C
The creations of individuals have more integrity as works of art, on average, than those of groups.
D
The unconventionality of a creation has no bearing on its integrity as a work of art.
E
A creation has no integrity as a work of art unless the artistic decisions made in creating it were unaffected by views about what is conventional.
This is an SA question.
The argument opens with OPA. “Many people” believe that independent films have more integrity as work than major studio productions because indies are less conventional. Okay, great. That’s OPA.
The author (filmmaker) transitions to her argument with “however.” The premise is that indie filmmakers’ need to make a profit affects their artistic decisions. The conclusion is that indie films do not have absolute artistic integrity.
This looks a lot like a PSA question. The premise can be represented as P and the conclusion as C. We need to build a P→C bridge. If profit affects artistic decisions, then there is no absolute artistic integrity. Or something like that.
Correct Answer Choice (B) says if any of the artistic decisions made in creating something were affected by the need to make profits, then that creation does not have absolute integrity as a work of art. That works as a P→C bridge. As is often the case, the correct answer covers more than what we need. (B) covers any artistic decision, not just the ones involved in filmmaking. But that’s fine.
Answer Choice (A) can be eliminated on its logic alone. You can either notice that the sufficient condition here is “artistic decision unaffected by profit needs” or notice that the necessary condition here is “creation has absolute artistic integrity.” Both are wrong. The sufficient condition is supposed to be P, not /P. The necessary condition is supposed to be C, not /C. This is a recurring type of wrong answer for SA and PSA questions. It’s sufficiency-necessity confusion.
Answer Choice (C) can be eliminated by noticing that it’s a comparative statement. We need a logically tight bridge. (C) says that individual creations tend to have more artistic integrity than group creations. Okay, but the argument isn’t concerned with comparing “individual creations” to “group creations.” Only OPA talks about indie films in comparison to major studio productions. No doubt major studio productions are “group creations.” But don’t assume that indie films are “individual creations.” They probably involve fewer people but they probably still involve more than one person.
Answer Choice (D) precludes something as having an effect on artistic integrity. (D) precludes the “unconventionality” of a creation as having an effect on artistic integrity. Okay, now what? The argument is assuming that profit requirements have an effect on artistic integrity. More specifically, it assumes that the effect is that it taints artistic integrity.
Answer Choice (E) is a conditional constructed with “unless.” Translated to an “if...then...” construction, we get, “If artistic decisions were affected by views about what is conventional, then no artistic integrity.” The problem here is that the premises in the argument do not trigger the sufficient condition. All we know about indie filmmakers is that they need to make a profit, which affects their artistic decisions. It’s a further assumption that the need to make a profit amounts to a “view about what is conventional.” The necessary condition in (E) is more than what’s needed, but that’s not a problem for SA answers. If we could have triggered the sufficient condition here, then we could have drawn the conclusion that a creation has no artistic integrity. That would have necessarily implied that it doesn’t have absolute artistic integrity.