Film director: Although the production costs of my latest film are very high, there is little risk that the film studio will not recover these costs. Even if the film is unpopular, much of the money is being spent to develop innovative special-effects technology that could be used in future films.

Summarize Argument
The film director concludes that there’s little risk of the studio losing money on his new movie despite its high costs. This is because some of the money is being spent on special-effects technology will be used in future films.

Notable Assumptions
The film director assumes that much of the cost of the movie is being put towards developing innovative special-effects technology. If that cost was instead being put towards paying actors or elaborate set design, then the studio wouldn’t be likely to recover costs from a box-office failure. The film director also assumes that the technology will in fact be used in future films. If the technology was never used again, or only used in films that fail, then the studio wouldn’t be likely to recover costs.

A
Because the film studio owns the new technology, the studio will be able to control its use in any future films.
This supports the film director’s argument. The technology will be exclusive to the studio, which will perhaps give the studio the upper-hand over competitors later on.
B
Films that introduce innovative special-effects technologies generally draw large audiences of people who are curious about the new effects.
This suggests the film director’s film will be successful. We care about what will happen if it isn’t successful.
C
The production costs of this film are so high that, even if the film is popular, it is unlikely that the film’s ticket sales will offset those costs.
The film director accounts for scenarios where the film loses money. She argues that the studio will nevertheless recover those costs.
D
In the past, many innovative special-effects technologies were abandoned after the films for which they were developed proved to be unpopular.
The special-effects technology might never be used again. Since that’s the only way the film director sees the studio recovering costs, this defeats the film director’s argument that it’s “likely” the studio will recover costs.
E
The use of the new special-effects technology would lower the production costs of other films that use it.
This supports the film director’s argument. The special-effects technology will save the studio money in the long run.

7 comments

For a work to be rightly thought of as world literature, it must be received and interpreted within the writer’s own national tradition and within external national traditions. A work counts as being interpreted within a national tradition if authors from that tradition use the work in at least one of three ways: as a positive model for the development of their own tradition, as a negative case of a decadent tendency that must be consciously avoided, or as an image of radical otherness that prompts refinement of the home tradition.

Summary

For a work to be considered world literature, it must be received and interpreted by the writer’s own national tradition and by other national traditions. A work is interpreted by a national tradition if writers from that tradition use it in at least one of three ways: as a positive model for the development of their tradition, as a negative model to avoid in the development of their tradition, or as a way to refine the development of their tradition.

Strongly Supported Conclusions

A work can be a negative model in some contexts and a positive model in others and still be considered world literature.

In order to be interpreted by a national tradition, a work of literature must affect the development of that tradition in some way.

A
A work of literature cannot be well received within an external national tradition if it is not well received within the writer’s own national tradition.

Unsupported. The stimulus doesn’t connect the the writer’s own national tradition with external national traditions. Perhaps a work can still be received well in an external tradition without being received well in the writer’s own tradition.

B
A work of world literature offers more to readers within external national traditions than it offers to readers within the writer’s national tradition.

Unsupported. The stimulus does not give any information about what a work of world literature offers to different audiences.

C
A work should not be thought of as world literature if it is more meaningful to readers from the writer’s national tradition than it is to readers from external national traditions.

Unsupported. Whether a work is more meaningful to one group or another has no effect on whether it should be thought of as world literature.

D
A work of world literature is always influenced by works outside of the writer’s national tradition.

Unsupported. For a work to be world literature, it must be received and interpreted by the writer’s own national tradition and by other national traditions. We aren’t told that it’s always influenced by other works outside of the writer’s national tradition.

E
A work is not part of world literature if it affects the development of only one national tradition.

Strongly supported. A work of world literature must be interpreted by the writer’s national tradition and other national traditions. Thus, it must affect the development of both traditions either as a positive model, a negative model, or a model of refinement.


39 comments

Businessperson: Because the parking area directly in front of the building was closed for maintenance today, I was late to my meeting. If the maintenance had been done on a different day, I would have gotten to the meeting on time. After finding out that I could not park in that area it took me 15 minutes to find an available parking space, making me a few minutes late.

Summarize Argument
The businessperson concludes that she would’ve been on time for her meeting if parking area maintenance had been done on a different day. This is because it took her 15 minutes to find parking since the parking area was closed for maintenance, hence why she arrived late.

Notable Assumptions
The businessperson assumes that she would’ve been on time if the parking area hadn’t had maintenance going on. This means she assumes that she would’ve been able to find parking in the parking area if it had been open.

A
What were the reasons for performing maintenance on the parking area directly in front of the building on that particular day?
We don’t care why maintenance was being performed. We care if the maintenance actually made the businessperson late for her meeting.
B
Were any other of the meeting attendees also late to the meeting because they had difficulty finding parking?
We don’t know if other meeting attendees drove to the meeting. Even if none of the others were late because of parking, it could just be that those people took the bus or walked to work.
C
What are the parking patterns in the building’s vicinity on days when the parking area in front of the building is open?
If the parking area is generally crowded, perhaps to the point of being full, then maintenance wasn’t the problem as the businessperson claims—she wouldn’t have found parking, anyway. If the parking area is generally empty, she would’ve found parking.
D
Does the businessperson have a tendency to be late to meetings?
We don’t care if she’s often late to meetings. It could still be she would’ve been on time if not for the maintenance.
E
Was it particularly important that the businessperson not be late to this meeting?
Irrelevant. How important this meeting was has no bearing on why the businessperson was late.

48 comments

Riverdale’s Modern Party Chairperson: Maples, the Modern Party candidate, would be a better mayor than his opponent, Tannett, who is a member of the Traditionalist Party. Every member of the Modern Party is better qualified to be mayor than is any member of the Traditionalist Party.

Summary

Maples, the Modern Party candidate, would be a better mayor than Tannett, his opponent and member of the Traditionalist Party. Every Modern Party member is better qualified to be mayor than any Traditionalist Party member.

Notable Valid Inferences

For MBT-Except questions, the wrong answers are all Could Be True. The one right answer Must Be False.

Tannett is better qualified to be mayor than any other member of the Traditionalist Party.

Maples is the least qualified Modern Party member for mayor.

A
Maples has the least seniority of any member of Riverdale’s Modern Party and was recently ousted from the Traditionalist Party.

Could be true. We don’t have any information in the stimulus about Maples’ seniority status.

B
Tannett would be a better mayor than would any other member of Riverdale’s Traditionalist Party.

Could be true. It is possible that Tannett is the best member of the Traditionalist Party, but not better than any Modern Party member.

C
Few residents of Riverdale believe that Maples would be a better mayor than Tannett.

Could be true. The stimulus does not provide any information about what residents of Riverdale believe. We cannot assume that Riverdale’s Modern Party Chairperson’s beliefs are representative of the residents.

D
Of all the members of Riverdale’s Modern Party, Maples would be the worst mayor.

Could be true. The stimulus tells use that every Modern Party member is more qualified than any Traditionalist Party member. It is possible that Maples is the worst in the Modern Party, but still better than any Traditionalist Party member.

E
Tannett is better qualified to be mayor than is Riverdale’s Modern Party Chairperson.

Must be false. The stimulus tells us that every Modern Party member, not just candidate, is better qualified than any Traditionalist Party member.


6 comments