In the past, traditional, 2-D films made by Hollywood studios have bee

Question

In the past, traditional, 2-D films made by Hollywood studios have been considered more lucrative than 3-D films. Nevertheless, a recent study has found that the most popular films from the past year used 3-D techniques significantly more than less popular films did. This confirms the view that 3-D films have become more lucrative than traditional, 2-D films.

The conclusion above is based on which of the following assumptions?

(A) 2-D films are not artistically appropriate for the narratives many directors wish to depict.

(B) Hollywood studios have the technical capabilities to produce either 2-D or 3-D films.

(C) Films shot in 2-D could be made as easily by using 3-D technologies.

(D) The majority of films made in the past year were filmed exclusively in 3-D.

(E) The most popular films earn more money than less popular films.

JenniferMassey · Answer

D

Conclusion- 3-D films have become more lucrative than traditional, 2-D films.

Most popular films used 3D does it mean that all films used 3D as mentioned in the conclusion

Most popular films could be 1 or two and they might be lucrative but relatively less than if majority of films still use 2D.

So if we assume that even majority of films use 3D as well we are supporting the conclusion that 3D films has become more lucrative.

So I chose D

I hope I am correct here.

Posted from my mobile device

aziz7860 · Answer

Answer:E
P1: 2D more lucrative than 3D
P2:Most Popular film used 3D tech > less popular film.

Con: 3D more lucrative than 2D.

Missing link: popular==> lucrative. How? By making more money.

Posted from my mobile device

Soumanti Roy · Answer

I don't understand the connection between finding a particular technology "lucrative" and the money made by using the technology. Honestly I thought E was most out of focus. I chose B.
Experts please reply with the explanation.

AnirudhaS · Answer

lucrative = producing a great deal of profit.

E bridges the gap perfectly.
First premise says 2d more lucrative than 3d
Second premise says last year popular films used 3d.

So the author made the assumption that popular films = lucrative to make his conclusion

Bunuel · Answer

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

In this argument, we have the conclusion that 3-D films make more money than 2-D films, based on the evidence that they are more popular. To find the assumption that makes this argument work, we have to identify what’s missing to link the evidence to the conclusion. Here, (E) is the best answer, as it correctly creates the link between high popularity and high earnings that the given evidence and conclusion assume.

(A) is concerned with the content of the films themselves. If an answer choice like this tempts you, evaluate whether it would still make sense if you replaced 3-D and 2-D films with other types of products--oranges and apples, for example. If you’ve identified the correct assumption, this shift in content shouldn’t matter as long as the products make sense in context. Here, content is irrelevant to the assumption.

Similarly, the ability to make 3-D films (B) or the ease with which these films are made (C) doesn’t have anything to do with the link between popularity and revenues that the conclusion and evidence demand.

(D) may be tempting, because it makes sense that the most popular films were 3-D if most films were 3-D, but it still does not engage on the issue of price, which is vital to making the assumption that the most popular films make the most money.

Answer = (E)

unraveled · Answer

In the past, traditional, 2-D films made by Hollywood studios have been considered more lucrative than 3-D films. Nevertheless, a recent study has found that the most popular films from the past year used 3-D techniques significantly more than less popular films did. This confirms the view that 3-D films have become more lucrative than traditional, 2-D films.

The conclusion above is based on which of the following assumptions?

(A) 2-D films are not  artistically appropriate  for the narratives many directors wish to depict.

(B) Hollywood studios have the  technical capabilities  to produce either 2-D or 3-D films.

(C) Films shot in 2-D  could be made as easily  by using 3-D technologies.

(D) The majority of films made in the  past year  were filmed exclusively in 3-D.

(E) The most popular films earn more money than less popular films.

The key to this question is careful reading, if not read well then it becomes a lost case.

Keywords are 'traditional', 'lucrative', 'recent' and 'popular'. So, it boils down to whether popular and lucrative are equivalent in nature. And if they are then how.

Only option E establishes how they are related i.e. popular films are commercially more successful.

Answer E.

Paras96 · Answer

(E) The most popular films earn more money than less popular films.

This assumption suggests that the reason 3-D films have become more lucrative than traditional 2-D films is that the most popular films (which use 3-D techniques significantly more) earn more money than less popular films. In other words, the assumption is that the popularity of films is directly linked to their revenue.

This assumption indeed supports the argument's conclusion that 3-D films have become more lucrative than 2-D films because it implies that the increased use of 3-D techniques in the most popular films is a contributing factor to their higher revenue. If this assumption were false, it would weaken the argument because it would raise questions about the link between popularity and revenue.

monkinaferrari · Answer

Hi, can somebody please help me understand how E is correct ? Lucrative means producing more profit correct ?

When we say a film earns more money, we are generally referring to its gross revenue—the total amount of money the film has made from ticket sales, merchandise, and other sources. This doesn't necessarily mean it has earned more profit.

Gross revenue: The total money earned before any expenses (like production costs, marketing, distribution, etc.) are deducted.
Profit: The amount left after all expenses are deducted from the gross revenue.

So, IMO it should have been D

DmitryFarberMPrep · Answer

Sure, lucrative is about profit, but that doesn't make revenue irrelevant. For a movie to make a lot of profit, it DOES need a lot of revenue. The argument relies on the assumption that popular films are more lucrative than other films, so they must need to earn a lot of revenue. Sure, it's possible for them to be more lucrative without earning more, but only if they cost less, and there's no reason to figure that they would. (On the contrary, in real life they are going to cost more.) If we negate E, we get the idea that popular films don't make any more money than others. This breaks the connection the author is trying to make between popular, 3D films and lucrativeness.

D, meanwhile, goes in the opposite direction of what we want. The author is using the prevalence of 3D among popular films to show that 3D might aid in making a film popular, and therefore lucrative. But if MOST films are 3D, then it's harder to assess whether 3D is making some popular and some not. In fact, it seems likely that 3D is not the issue. If we negate D, we get the idea that < 1/2 of films last year were 3D. That doesn't hurt the argument at all. Those films could be the popular ones.

dejavu3363 · Answer

marked B in this question, so I found the missing link in the question accurately and was targeting to mark E. But then l looked at B and D and applied assumption negation technique on them. Surprisingly B also has to be true in this case. However its not pointing to the conclusion, maybe B is having an assumption on premise, that both films can be made technically now. My question is, should the assumption always revolve around missing link/flaw and conclusion, or it can be anything else mentioned in the passage?  Bunuel   KarishmaB   DmitryFarber  please throw some light

KarishmaB · Answer

Yes, an assumption is needed for the conclusion so it does focus on the gap in the reasoning from premise to conclusion.

Also, (B) and (D) do not need to be true

(B) Hollywood studios have the technical capabilities to produce either 2-D or 3-D films.

This means 'All  Hollywood studios have the technical capabilities to produce either 2-D or 3-D films.'
 
Negated: Not all  Hollywood studios have the technical capabilities to produce either 2-D or 3-D films.

We don't need that every Hollywood studio should have the capability to  produce either 2-D or 3-D films.

(D) The majority of films made in the past year were filmed exclusively in 3-D.

We don't need this to be true. It is easily possible that most films were filmed in 2D as well as 3D. It is also possible that only 10% films were filmed in 3D last year. The argument does not require that most films should have been filmed in 3D.

In the past, traditional, 2-D films made by Hollywood studios have bee

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

In the past, traditional, 2-D films made by Hollywood studios have bee

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