LSAT 141 | Section 2 | Logical Reasoning: Q3

LR Question 3 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Some video game makers have sold the movie rights…

QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Reasoning

CONCLUSION: It’s rarely a good idea for video game makers to sell the movie rights to their games.

REASONING: One time, when a company sold movie rights to a game, things ended badly.

ANALYSIS: This is a very weak argument. The story about Starquanta and Nostroma sounds persuasive, because it was a best-selling game.

But it’s still just one example. A single example can’t prove that it’s always a bad idea to sell movie rights.

___________

1. CORRECT. To draw a general conclusion you should have more than one example.
2. This contradicts the stimulus. The argument clearly said that the movie was hated “by critics and public alike”.
   Also, this is nonsense. The stimulus never predicted anything about a product being hated. They said that a product (the movie) was hated. That’s not a prediction.
   Example of flaw: The critics don’t like this video game. Therefore, the public will hate it.
3. This answer means “circular reasoning”. That didn’t happen here. Circular reasoning is very rare.
   Example of flaw: Selling movie rights is a bad idea because it’s never a good idea to sell movie rights.
4. I have no idea what this answer refers to.
   Example of flaw: This movie with lots of sex scenes was popular. Therefore, this video game with lots of sex scenes will be popular.
5. This refers to mixing up sufficient and necessary conditions. That didn’t happen.
   Example of flaw: Good video games must be challenging. This game is challenging, therefore it’s good.