If the play were successful, it would be adapted as a movie or revived

Question

If the play were successful, it would be adapted as a movie or revived at the Decade Festival. But it is not successful. We must, regrettably, conclude that it will neither become a movie nor be revived at the Decade Festival.

The argument’s reasoning is flawed because the argument

The argument’s reasoning is flawed because the argument

(A) fails to draw the conclusion that the play will not both be adapted as a movie and be revived at the Decade Festival, rather than that it will do neither

(B) fails to explain in exactly what way the play is unsuccessful

(C) equates the play’s aesthetic worth with its commercial success

(D) presumes, without providing justification, that there are no further avenues for the play other than adaptation as a movie or revival at the Decade Festival

(E) fails to recognize that the play’s not satisfying one sufficient condition does not preclude its satisfying a different sufficient condition for adaptation as a movie or revival at the Decade Festival

IanStewart · Answer

The logic of this question is typical of the LSAT, but atypical of the GMAT. You could describe the issue in the argument in one of two essentially equivalent ways (I'll just ignore throughout the distraction about the "Decade Festival" and assume the argument only talks about making plays into movies) :

• the argument confuses the inverse with the contrapositive. The argument says, abstractly, as a premise: "If A is true, B will be true". It then concludes "A is false, so B is false." That conclusion is what is known as the "inverse" of the premise, and it's not generally speaking a valid logical deduction (it will only sometimes be correct, depending on the situation). For example, in math, it is true that when x > 2, then x^2 > 4. But if x is not greater than 2, that doesn't necessarily mean x^2 is not greater than 4, because x might equal -100, say. What you  can  safely conclude from "If A is true, B will be true" is what is known as the "contrapositive" in logic. To rephrase this as its contrapositive, we must negate A and B, but we also must flip the condition with the conclusion: "If B is false, then A is false" is an airtight inference from "If A is true, B will be true". So here, where the question says (I'll simplify a bit for clarity) "If the play is successful, it will be made into a film", we can safely conclude "If the play will not be made into a film, the play was not successful". But we can't safely draw the conclusion the original argument draws, because the argument tells us nothing about whether unsuccessful plays are made into films.

• or you could describe the logical error in the language of "necessary conditions" and "sufficient conditions", as the correct answer here does. You won't see those terms on the GMAT, but the question stem describes a "sufficient condition": if a play is successful, that is enough, or sufficient, for it to be made into a film. The stem does not tell us anything, however, about "necessary conditions": it does not tell us the characteristics a play needs to have to be made into a film. For all we know, from the stem, maybe every play that is 100+ pages long is made into a film, and that's the only necessary condition a play needs to meet to be optioned as a screenplay. So the argument is confused about sufficient conditions and necessary conditions, and that's what answer E says.

Crytiocanalyst · Answer

(A) fails to draw the conclusion that the play will not both be adapted as a movie and be revived at the Decade Festival, rather than that it will do neither
The conclusion has been drawn we have to evaluvate and cite the reason for such a conclusion rather than not coming to a decision therefore out

(B) fails to explain in exactly what way the play is unsuccessful
The scucess criteria was never the piece of concern therefore out

(C) equates the play’s aesthetic worth with its commercial success
Asethetics might be a criteria however the likes of which is not discussed here therefore out

(D) presumes, without providing justification, that there are no further avenues for the play other than adaptation as a movie or revival at the Decade Festival
There might and might not be however we have to evaluvate the reasons for the exclusion from inclusing the cited venues in the passage which is not clear therefore out

(E) fails to recognize that the play’s not satisfying one sufficient condition does not preclude its satisfying a different sufficient condition for adaptation as a movie or revival at the Decade Festival
This is exactly what we were looking for , one condition might non-compilation doesn't make other viable factors to be completely excluded there might other elegibility option that might make the play equal in par with other plays to be played in movies therefore our answer

Therefore IMO E

Bunuel · Answer

EXPLANATION FROM Fox LSAT

This is another sufficient/necessary flaw. The facts say that if the play were successful, that would be sufficient information to know that the play would either have to be adapted or revived. Then the argument concludes, on the basis of the play  not  being successful, that the play won’t be adapted or revived. That’s like saying, “If you’re eaten by a shark, you’re dead, therefore any time you’re not eaten by a shark, you’re not dead.” The problem with this thinking is that you could be dead for a lot of other reasons. Similarly, the play could be adapted or revived for a lot of other reasons.

We’re asked to identify the flaw, so we’re looking for something that points out the sufficient/necessary flaw. In the abstract, this would sound like, “The argument confuses a sufficient condition for a necessary condition.” Worded more specifically, it might sound like, “The argument mistakenly assumes that a play’s success is the only reason it would ever be adapted or revised.”

A) No. The flaw isn’t that the argument drew the wrong conclusion; the flaw is that the argument drew any conclusion at all. The conclusion, “the play will not both be adapted as a movie and be revived,” wouldn’t be justified… it would be just as bad as the given conclusion.

B) You don’t need to define everything in your entire argument. The fact that the play is unsuccessful is enough to know that the rule “every successful play will be either adapted or revived” isn’t triggered in this case. We don’t need to know why it’s unsuccessful.

C) I don’t think the argument actually does this. And anyway, we know exactly what we’re looking for. This isn’t it.

D) No, “other avenues” aren’t relevant. The only thing that’s relevant to the given rule is adaptation and revival.

E) Yes, it’s a sufficient/necessary problem. “Sufficient condition,” in this case, means “reason for adapting or reviving.” Success is one reason for adapting or reviving. But there could be other reasons besides success. In fact, maybe  lack of success  would be an equally good reason to adapt it (it sucks, let’s fix it) or revive it (it’s so bad that people will come see it for laughs, a la  Point Break ). This matches our prediction quite nicely, so it’s got to be our answer.

Our answer is E

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

If the play were successful, it would be adapted as a movie or revived

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

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

If the play were successful, it would be adapted as a movie or revived

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

My Rewards