In order to be considered a contender during awards season, a film must be widely acclaimed by film critics around the time of its release. The Final Whistle, then, will not be a contender during awards season, as noted critic Benjamin Bourne has awarded the film his lowest rating of the year thus far.
Which of the following is a necessary assumption of the argument above?
A) No films other than The Final Whistle received similarly low ratings from critic Benjamin Bourne.
B) Benjamin Bourne’s film ratings do not always match the ratings of the majority of his peers.
C) No film has ever received Benjamin Bourne’s lowest rating while still remaining a contender during awards season.
D) Benjamin Bourne uses the same ratings system as does the majority of film critics.
E) Benjamin Bourne’s opinion of The Final Whistle was not dissimilar from other opinions of the film.
Answer:
Premise #1: Film must be widely acclaimed by critics to be a contender.
Premise #2: Noted critic BB has awarded his lowest rating to the film in this year.
Conclusion: Final Whistle will not be a contender.
Assumption?
A -> We cannot say for sure if BBs ratings alone determine whether a film will be a contender or not. It may be that films with low ratings from BB have been contenders, and it may equally also be that films with low ratings from BB are not considered contenders. That sort of evidence is absent in the argument as well as the answer choice.
B -> This may be true, but then again, it does not go to say that BBs rating will then be the deciding factor in whether a film is a contender or not. Since we want it to be widely acclaimed, this option may even act as a weakener to the argument presented, as mahority of other critics would have rated the film highly.
C -> Historically, this may be true. So far there may not have been a film that received a low rating from BB and still remained a contender. However, this isn't indicative of what can happen in the case of Final Whistle.
D -> We have no information on the credibility of each of the rating systems, and hence we cannot decide if the usage of one system trumps the usage of another.
E -> If BB had a dissimilar opinion of the film than others, i.e. a different opinion, then the argument does not hold, as the argument inherently states that wide acclaim is a necessary condition for a contender. Therefore, the original statement here, where BBs opinion is the same as many other critics indicates that a majority of them feel that the film deserved the low rating, hence not being widely acclaimed. This is the answer.