Film critic: The essential mark of a great film is that it broadens

Film critic: The essential mark of a great film is that it broadens the psychological horizons of its audience. The usual way to do this is to call into question some of the values or assumptions that the audience members have long taken for granted. Thus, a film that makes the viewer uncomfortable is most likely a great one, since it is inevitably discomforting to have one's core beliefs challenged.

The conclusion of the film critic's argument is the following:

a film that makes the viewer uncomfortable is most likely a great one

To support that conclusion, the film critic uses the following chain of reasoning:

The critic begins with a general statement about what makes a film a great film: The essential mark of a great film is that it broadens the psychological horizons of its audience.

Then, the critic provides information on how a film "broadens the psychological horizons of its audience": The usual way to do this is to call into question some of the values or assumptions that the audience members have long taken for granted.

Finally, the critic connects the provided information to the conclusion: it is inevitably discomforting to have one's core beliefs challenged --> Thus, a film that makes the viewer uncomfortable is most likely a great one.

The correct answer will indicate how that reasoning is flawed.

A. It confuses a claim that great films usually have a certain characteristic with a claim that films having that characteristic are likely to be great.

This choice is correct because this it accurately describes something the argument does and what it describes is a way the reasoning is flawed.

Notice that the reasoning is basically that a great film must make people uncomfortable and that, therefore, a film that makes people uncomfortable must be great.

In proceeding in that way, the reasoning misses the fact that, while great films may make people uncomfortable, films can make people uncomfortable without being great. In fact, a film could make people uncomfortable because it is so weak that it's hard to watch.

So, the reasoning goes from the idea that great films make people uncomfortable to the idea that films that make people uncomfortable are likely great even though the first does not mean the second.

Thus, the reasoning does what this choice describes.

Keep.

B. It overlooks the possibility that there are ways to broaden an audience's psychological horizons without calling into question their core values or assumptions.

This choice is incorrect because it describes something the argument doesn't do. After all, the reasoning considers "the possibility that there are ways to broaden an audience's psychological horizons without calling into question their core values or assumptions" when it says, "The usual way to do this is to call into question some of the values or assumptions that the audience members have long taken for granted."

We see that, in using the language "the usual way to do this," the author acknowledges that there are other ways to "broaden an audience's psychological horizons" while indicating that it is not "usual" for those other ways to be used.

Eliminate.

C. It takes for granted that it is appropriate for a film to call into question the core beliefs of its audience, regardless of what those core beliefs are.

Notice that the argument works even if it's not appropriate to call beliefs into question regardless of what those core beliefs are.

The argument involves the idea that, to be great, a film must challenge core beliefs and make viewers uncomfortable. That idea does not require it to be the case that "it is appropriate for a film to call into question the core beliefs of its audience, regardless of what those core beliefs are."

Regardless of whether there are some core beliefs such that it is NOT appropriate for a film to call them into question, a film could be great by calling into question core beliefs such that it is appropriate to call them into question.

So, what this choice describes is not a flaw in the argument.

Eliminate.

D. It confuses two distinct meanings of the word "great."

This choice is incorrect because what it describes the argument does not do.

While the argument uses the word "great" twice, it uses it in the same way both times, communicating the same meaning both times, not two different meanings.

Eliminate.

E. It fails to adequately address the possibility that viewers may feel comfortable much of the time when watching a great film even if that film challenges some of their values.

This choice is incorrect because, even though the reasoning of the argument does not directly address "the possibility that viewers may feel comfortable much of the time when watching a great film," that the reasoning does not do so is not a flaw in the argument.

The logic of the argument is that a great film expands people's psychological horizons and makes them uncomfortable in the process of doing so. A film can do so by making viewers uncomfortable during only a portion of the film, leaving them feeling comfortable much of the time they watch the film.

So, the logic of the argument works even if viewers may feel comfortable much of the time when watching a great film.

Eliminate.

The correct answer is (A).