Film critic: There has been

Answer choices

1. A

   Out of Scope4% picked this

   Although filmmakers are entitled to express absurd views, they are not justified

   Out of Scope: justified Bad Conclusion Match The first half of this matches the conversation, but saying that filmmakers "are not justified in expressing absurd views" is equivalent to saying, "they should not express absurd views". The author never went that far and said that the filmmakers shouldn't have made their films. She merely said that none of us audience members need bother to watch these films.

   4%
2. B

   Too Strong: everyone should ignore2% picked this

   Everyone ought to ignore films containing wild speculations

   The actual conclusion is "everyone is free of any obligation to pay attention to these films". This answer is saying, "everyone is obliged to ignore these films". It's one thing to say, "You don't need to pay attention to X if you don't want to" and a much stronger thing to say, "You should ignore X". This answer could be correct if we were doing a Strengthen + Principle questions: Which principle, if valid, most justifies the argument?

   2%
3. C

   Too Strong: necessary1% picked this

   Freedom of speech sometimes makes the expression of absurd

   It sounds like the author is saying that freedom of speech makes the expression of absurd views allowable. But she never suggests that it's necessary.

   1%
4. D

   Contradicted12% picked this

   Freedom of speech does not entitle filmmakers to present inaccurate speculations

   These films seem to often present inaccurate speculations as truth, and the author says "the claim that freedom of speech entitles the filmmakers to express these views is true". So the author thinks that freedom of speech does entitle filmmakers to do this.

   12%
5. E

   Correct81% picked this

   Views that people are entitled to express need not be views to which anyone is

   Why this is right

   This is lovably weak language. Saying "something that is X need not be Y" is just saying "it's possible to be X and not-Y". This matches all the language in the final sentence. The author affirms that freedom of speech entitles the fillmmakers to express the absurd views in these films. She also says that "that doesn't mean that anyone is obliged to pay attention to these views". So she apparently believes that you can have a view that you're entitled to express, but it can also be a view that no one is obliged to pay attention to.

   Skill tested: Principle-Conform · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   81%