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

Question

﻿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.

Which of the following is a logical flaw in the film critic's argument?

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

MartyMurray · Accepted Answer

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).

gmatophobia · Answer

Conclusion of the argument  : A film that makes the viewer uncomfortable is most likely a great one

Reasoning  : 
 
 A great film broadens the psychological horizons of its audience usually by calling into question some of the values or assumptions that the audience members have long taken for granted 
 A film that makes the viewer uncomfortable is inevitably discomforting to have one's core beliefs challenged. Hence, the film is great.

Hence, the ﻿Film Critic assumes that making a viewer uncomfortable is sufficient to likely make the movie a great one.

Answer choice elimination  :

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 is correct. The ﻿Film Critic assumes that making a viewer uncomfortable is sufficient to likely make the movie a great one. The critic's line of reasoning is - all great movies call into question some of the values or assumptions that the audience members have long taken for granted so if any movie makes the viewer uncomfortable is most likely a great one. So he confuses that certain aspects that are common to most great films are likely sufficient to make a film great.

For example, Christopher Nolan is a renowned filmmaker known for his unique style and thought-provoking storytelling. Nolan's films often explore mind-bending and metaphysical concepts, such as time manipulation, dreams, memory, and identity, producing great films. While it would be correct to say a great film often explores mind-bending and metaphysical concepts, it would not be correct to say that a film that explores mind-bending and metaphysical concepts is likely great. (Reminds me of The Matrix Resurrections - Sorry Matrix fans !)

Hence, we can keep this option.

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 isn't the flaw in the argument. The argument revolves around how great films broaden the psychological horizons of their audience by calling into question the beliefs of their audience. The critic is cautious in his /her statement (note the usage:   ... The  usual   way to ...  ). We have to find a flaw in the conclusion. Option A does a better job. We can eliminate B.

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.

Morality is not a question here. We are looking to flaws in the way the critic arrives at the conclusion " a film that makes the viewer uncomfortable is most likely a great one ". Whether it's appropriate or not to challenge the core beliefs of the audience is not the point of contention. We can eliminate option C.

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

Not really! The film critic's conclusion doesn't confuse or deviate from the definition introduced in the earlier part of the argument. Hence, this statement is not correct. We can eliminate D.

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 option is similar to option C. We are not questioning or finding a flaw in the process here. Our aim is to find a flaw in the reasoning that the film critic used to arrive at his conclusion, "  a film that makes the viewer uncomfortable is most likely a great one  ". Hence, we can eliminate this option.

Option A   stands out.

Kratosgmat · Answer

Most of us would be down to A and E for this
E - it doesnt matter how much time you feel uncomfortable, time isnt a factor here. As per argument, if you feel uncomfortable, the film will be great.
 Hence A is the right option

GMATGuruNY · Answer

The CONTRAPOSITIVE of an if-then statement is always true.
Original statement: If A, then B.
Contrapositive: If not B, then not A.

Example:
Original statement: If John is in New York City, then John is in the United States.
Contrapositive:  If John is not in the United States, then John is not in New York City. 
The green statement above is true.

Not necessarily true: 
 If B, then A.
If not A, then not B.

Examples:
 If John is in the United States, then John is in New York City.
If John is not in New York City, then John is not in the United States. 
The red statements above are NOT necessarily true.

Given  If A, then B :
It is a FLAW to conclude  If B, then A  or  If not A, then not B .

Premise, rephrased as an if-then statement:
If  a film is great   , then it broadens the psychological horizons of its audience, typically by  calling into question assumptions that the audience has taken for granted   .
If A, then B.

Conclusion. rephrased as an if-then statement:
If a film makes the viewer uncomfortable since it is inevitably discomforting  to have one's core beliefs challenged   , then  that film is great  . 
If B, then A.

The argument illogically reverses the if-then relationship.
This flaw is described by option A:
It confuses a claim that great films usually have a certain characteristic ( if great, then discomfort ) with a claim that films having that characteristic are likely to be great ( if discomfort, then great ).

A

Usernamevisible · Answer

What move is author making?
The author goes:
 
That is the key jump.

One objection will be there is evidence and hence not mixing evidence and conclusion

The issue is NOT:
“there is no evidence.”
There IS evidence.
The flaw is:
the evidence only supports ONE DIRECTION.
What the author successfully proves

The author argues:
Great films
→ challenge beliefs
→ challenging beliefs causes discomfort
So:
Great films often make viewers uncomfortable.
That chain is supported.
But what does the conclusion say?
“Therefore, a film that makes the viewer uncomfortable is most likely a great one.”
Now direction changed.
The author moved from:
greatness can produce discomfort
to
discomfort indicates greatness
That is the flaw.
Think in conditional shape
The argument basically gives:
Great film → discomfort
But concludes:
Discomfort → great film
That reversal is invalid.
Easy real-world analogy
Suppose:
“Professional athletes exercise intensely.”
True.
Would this follow?
“Therefore, anyone exercising intensely is probably a professional athlete.”
No.
Because:
many non-athletes also exercise intensely.
Same structure.
Minimal thing your brain should catch
Not:
“unsupported”
Instead:
“Evidence supports discomfort as a possible RESULT of greatness, but conclusion treats discomfort as EVIDENCE OF greatness.”
That distinction is the important CR skill.

Usernamevisible · Answer

Why is E wrong -

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.

Wrong.

Argument only needs possibility of discomfort, not nonstop discomfort.

This does not attack the core reversal flaw.

guddo · Answer

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.
 
 Which of the following is a logical flaw in the film critic's argument?

The critic argues that great films usually broaden viewers’ minds by challenging their assumptions, and that such challenges are uncomfortable. Then the critic concludes that an uncomfortable film is likely great.  The flaw is reversing the logic : great films may often cause discomfort, but that does not mean films that cause discomfort are  likely to be great .

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.

Correct. The argument moves from “great films often make viewers uncomfortable” to “films that make viewers uncomfortable are likely great.” That does not follow.

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.

Wrong. The critic says challenging assumptions is the usual way, not the only way. This is not the main flaw.

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.

Wrong. The argument is about identifying great films, not about whether challenging beliefs is morally appropriate.

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

Wrong. The argument uses “great” consistently to mean artistically important or valuable.

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.

Wrong. The issue is not whether a great film is uncomfortable all the time. The flaw is treating discomfort as evidence that a film is likely great.

Answer: (A)

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

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

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

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia