Jenkins maintains that the movie Firepower was not intended to provoke

Question

Jenkins maintains that the movie Firepower was not intended to provoke antisocial behavior, arguing that, on the contrary, it is in the interest of Firepower's director to prevent such behavior. Yet Jenkins's conclusion must be rejected, because the movie has clearly produced antisocial behavior among many of those who have seen it.

The reasoning in the argument is flawed in that it:

(A) rejects an argument on the grounds that it was offered by a person who was biased
(B) concludes from a mere correlation between certain phenomena that those phenomena are causally related
(C) infers that something is true of a whole solely on the grounds that it is true of a part of the whole
(D) overlooks the possibility that people can act in a way that is contrary to their expressed interest
(E) concludes from the mere fact that an action had a certain effect that the effect was intended by the person who performed the action

SomyaMBA2025 · Answer

Please confirm if B is rejected because there is no correlation

sahilsahh · Answer

While the argument does imply a causal relationship (movie -> antisocial behavior), this isn't its primary flaw. The main issue is assuming intent from outcome.

einstein801 · Answer

isnt the correlation wtching movie and antisocial behaviour?

rebrahimi12 · Answer

I crossed out E because the conclusion specifically focuses on the director's intent, not the intent of the audience whose action are affected. Is there a reason my logic may be flawed?

bb · Answer

I do not see what role the audience plays in E.

The argument says Director wanted to make the audience anti-social because it was anti-social after watching the movie, thus saying because something happened (audience they became anti-social after watching a movie by this director) does not mean that was director's intent.

MartyMurray · Answer

We can reject (B) because the argument does not use a correlation between watching the movie and antisocial behavior to support the conclusion that the movie has caused antisocial behavior.

Rather, the argument states that " the movie has clearly produced (i.e. caused) antisocial behavior among many of those who have seen it," without using a correlation, or any other evidence, to back up that claim.

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.

Jenkins maintains that the movie Firepower was not intended to provoke

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

Jenkins maintains that the movie Firepower was not intended to provoke

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