Logical Reasoning

PT132 · S4 · Q23 Film preservation requires transferring

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

  • Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one

  • Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step

  • 81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Start practicing free

Film preservation requires transferring old movies from their original material—unstable, deteriorating nitrate film—to stable acetate film.

Conclusion

Some films from the earliest years of Hollywood will be lost.

Evidence

There is no way to transfer all currently deteriorating nitrate films to acetate before they disintegrate.

Evaluation

The "new guy" in the conclusion is films from the earliest years of Hollywood. What is the author assuming about these? He must be thinking that there are so many of them in deteriorating nitrate form that we can't complete the preservation in time.

However, his evidence only said that we can't transfer all currently deteriorating nitrate films in time. What if the majority of those are from Hollywood's "middle years"? What if only 10% of the currently deteriorating nitrate films are from Hollywood's early years?

In that case, we could prioritize saving ALL of them and thwart the author's conclusion.

Goal

Look for an answer ruling out the idea that Hollywood's early films comprise a very small proportion of currently deteriorating nitrate films, or look for an answer that, when negated, gives us some other way of showing how all of Hollywood's early films could be saved.

23.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

  1. No new technology for transferring

    Too Strong: no new technique ever

    The author does have to assume that "no new technology that could transfer all currently deteriorating nitrate films will be developed in time to save Hollywood's early films", but she doesn't have to assume a new technology will never be developed.

    12% picked this

  2. Transferring films from nitrate to

    Out of Scope: expense

    This argument is about whether we're able to do it in time. It has already been established that transferring from nitrate to acetate is required for film preservation. If this is the only way we can preserve films, then it is the most and the least expensive way of doing so. Also, it's possible for something to be the least expensive option, but still be "too-expensive", so even if the author were saying that our main constraint is cost, he still could make his argument even if he's discussing the least costly option.

    1% picked this

  3. Not many films from the

    Too Strong: not many

    The author doesn't need to assume that barely any (or no) films from early Hollywood have already been transferred. He just needs to assume that there are plenty that still haven't been transferred. If we negate this, it sounds like an objection: "Hey, author, many films from the earliest years of Hollywood have already been transferred!" "Many" is a weak, imprecise quantity that could mean like 10 of them have been transferred. So while this would weaken his argument somewhat, it would still be pretty easy for him to say, "yes, many have been transferred, but the vast majority haven't."

    17% picked this

  4. Correct

    Some films from the earliest

    Why this is right

    When you contradict "some" (at least one), you get "none" (zero). If we negate this, it says "none of the films from the early years exist solely in their original nitrate format." Cleaning up that double negative would mean "all of the films from the early years exist in some other format beyond their original nitrate one." That is a huge objection. It's possible these early films have already been transferred to acetate, or maybe they've just been transferred to some other substance that "resets the clock" of when our last copy of them will disintegrate. In simpler terms, this answer is saying, "The author is assuming that there's at least one film from the early years of Hollywood that hasn't yet been copied / preserved." Yes, our author is definitely thinking that. This is similar to our predicted objection: "What if there aren't that many early films that need to be saved?" This is saying "The author is assuming that there's at least one early film that hasn't already been saved / needs to be saved".

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

    68% picked this

  5. The least popular films from

    Out of Scope: least popular

    Nothing in this argument has anything to do with whether or not a film was popular. It's just about whether or not it's from early Hollywood.

    1% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill
LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free