LSAT 141 – Section 2 – Question 03

LSAT 141 - Section 2 - Question 03

September 2014

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

Ask a tutor

Target time: 0:57

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
PT141 S2 Q03
+LR
Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw
Sampling +Smpl
A
94%
163
B
1%
149
C
1%
152
D
4%
155
E
1%
154
127
137
146
 +Easier 146.882 +SubsectionMedium

J.Y.’s explanation

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

Some video game makers have sold the movie rights for popular games. However, this move is rarely good from a business perspective. After all, StarQuanta sold the movie rights to its popular game Nostroma, but the poorly made film adaptation of the game was hated by critics and the public alike. Subsequent versions of the Nostroma video game, although better than the original, sold poorly.

Summarize Argument

The author concludes that selling the movie rights for popular video games is rarely good for business. He supports this by noting that the film adaptation of Nostroma was hated by critics and audiences, and later versions of the game sold poorly, even though they were better than the original.

Identify and Describe Flaw

This is the cookie-cutter flaw of hasty generalization, where the author draws a broad conclusion based on too little evidence. Here, the author argues that selling the movie rights for video games is usually bad for business, but he only provides one example. Perhaps Nostroma doesn’t accurately reflect most video game movies. Maybe it was just a bad movie, and most video game movies are successful and boost sales.

A
draws a general conclusion on the basis of just one individual case

The author draws a general conclusion about selling the movie rights for video games on the basis of just one individual case: the Nostroma movie. But the Nostroma movie might not accurately reflect the business impact of most video game movie deals.

B
infers that a product will be disliked by the public merely from the claim that the product was disliked by critics

The author explicitly states that the Nostroma movie was hated by both critics and the public. He doesn’t assume that the public will dislike something just because critics disliked it.

C
restates as a conclusion a claim earlier presented as evidence for that conclusion

This is the cookie-cutter flaw of circular reasoning, where the argument’s conclusion merely restates one of its premises. The author doesn’t make this mistake. He draws his conclusion based on an example that is distinct from that conclusion.

D
takes for granted that products with similar content that are in different media will be of roughly equal popularity

The author doesn't assume that games and movies about similar content will be equally popular. If anything, he assumes that the movie version of a popular video game will be significantly less popular.

E
treats a requirement for a product to be popular as something that ensures that a product will be popular

This is the cookie-cutter flaw of confusing necessary and sufficient conditions. The author doesn’t make this mistake. In fact, he never presents a necessary condition for a product to be popular in the first place.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 141 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Reading Comprehension

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply