Events & Promotions
|
|
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.
Customized
for You
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Apr 2512:30 AM EDT
-01:30 AM EDT
At one point, she believed GMAT wasn’t for her. After scoring 595, self-doubt crept in and she questioned her potential. But instead of quitting, she made the right strategic changes. The result? A remarkable comeback to 695. Check out how Saakshi did it.
Apr 2610:00 AM EDT
-11:00 AM EDT
The Target Test Prep course represents a quantum leap forward in GMAT preparation, a radical reinterpretation of the way that students should study. Try before you buy with a 5-day, full-access trial of the course for FREE!
Apr 2711:00 AM EDT
-12:00 PM EDT
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors
Apr 2808:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Whether you are just beginning your MBA journey or fine-tuning your path to a 700+ score, GMAT Day is designed to give you a competitive edge.
06 Aug 2023, 12:00
Kudos
Bookmarks
A
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
65%
(hard)
Question Stats:
63% (01:49) correct
37%
(02:01)
wrong
based on 1688
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
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.
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.
Using official mocks already?
Add GMAT Club Tests for harder practice, analytics, and explanations without overlapping Official Guide or official mock questions.
Try it now →
26 Aug 2023, 22:45
Kudos
Bookmarks
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).
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).
07 Aug 2023, 02:18
Kudos
Bookmarks
Bunuel
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.
