LSAT 109 – Section 1 – Question 02

LSAT 109 - Section 1 - Question 02

December 2000

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Target time: 0:49

This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question QuickView	Type	Tags	Answer Choices	Curve	Question Difficulty	Psg/Game/S Difficulty	Explanation
PT109 S1 Q02	+LR	Method of reasoning or descriptive +Method Analogy +An	A 92% 167 B 6% 161 C 0% 149 D 1% 155 E 1% 158	129 140 151	+Easier	148.877 +SubsectionMedium

Sheila: It has been argued that using computer technology to add color to a movie originally filmed in black and white damages the integrity of the original film. But no one argues that we should not base a movie on a novel or a short story because doing so would erode the value of the book or story. The film adaptation of the written work is a new work that stands on its own. Judgments of it do not reflect on the original. Similarly, the colorized film is a new work distinct from the original and should be judged on its own merit. It does not damage the integrity of the original black-and-white film.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position

Sheila rejects other’s claims that adding color to a movie originally filmed in black and white damages the integrity of the original film and instead concludes the integrity of these original films is not damaged. As evidence, Sheila points out that nobody argues film adaptations of novels or short stories similarly damage the integrity of the book or story. Just as film adaptations are new works that stand on their own, colorized film is a new work that should be judged on its own merit.

Describe Method of Reasoning

Sheila counters a position held by others. She does this by presenting an analogous argument with an obviously false conclusion: nobody argues we should not create film adaptations because doing so would erode the value of the original story.

It appeals to an analogy between similar cases.

The analogy is between colorized films and film adaptations of written works.

It offers a counterexample to a general principle.

The argument pertaining to film adaptations is not a counterexample, it is an analogous argument.

It appeals to popular opinion on the matter at issue.

Sheila does not appeal to popular opinion. She does not conclude that colorized film does not damage the integrity of the original black and white film just because most people believe it does not damage the integrity.

It distinguishes facts from value judgments.

Sheila does not address a value judgment.

It draws an inference from a general principle and a set of facts.

Sheila does not draw an inference.

LSAT PrepTest 109 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Reading Comprehension

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course