Logical Reasoning

PT138 · S2 · Q6 A film makes a profit if

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

A film makes a profit if the number of people who see it is sufficient to generate revenues from ticket sales greater than the amount spent to make it.

Background

If the number of people who see a movie generates enough ticket sales revenue to more than offset the money spent on making the movie, then the film makes a profit.

(thanks, LSAT ... we know what "profit" means)

Accordingly, the primary goal of movie execs is to max out how many people will see a film.

Surprising Claim

The primary goal TV execs is not to max out how many people will see their shows.

Evaluate

Given That Movie execs' #1 goal is to maximize the number of people who see films (since that potentially increases profitability)

Why is it That TV execs aren't making it their #1 goal to maximize the number of people who see their shows?

Goal

We know that the correct answer will need to provide a salient difference between Movies vs. TV, that would explain why the primary goal of execs in each field are different.

We don't need to predict answers in Paradox, but presumably our real world knowledge tells us one big difference between films and TV .... films get their money from box office sales / TV shows get their money from advertisers that run commercials during the show (unless it's subscription TV like HBO, but that's not the usual)

We can assume that since the first sentence connected profit to "number of viewers" for a movie, the correct answer will probably say .

6.

Which one of the following, if true, most helps to explain the difference between the goals of movie executives and those of television executives?

  1. More people are willing to

    Unclear/Opposite Impact

    This does point out a different between film and TV, but it's not clear how this would explain TV execs motives. This answer would require us to think, "If you think people are only going to watch your show once, then your primary goal isn't to attract the highest number of viewers". If anything this seems to go the opposite direction of explaining. Repeat-watching would be a way that you could make lots of revenue without necessarily needing lots of viewers (100 people watching something 10 times could be just as profitable as 1000 people watching something 1 time). Since TV watchers are not as frequently repeat-watchers, it seems even more like a TV exec would want to max out the number of people who would watch a show.

    1% picked this

  2. There is no analog in

    Out of Scope: owners of theaters

    We're analyzing a comparison between film execs and TV execs. The way that movie theater owners make their money is too out of scope. Film execs make their money based on number of people who see it, and until an answer choice tells us otherwise, we're left assuming that TV execs would make their money the same way.

    1% picked this

  3. The average cost of producing

    No Impact

    This does establish a difference --- the costs of making films is higher than the costs of making TV shows. But given that business owners are motivated to make profits as high as possible, it's not clear why this would explain how TV execs have some other priority bigger than number of viewers. The distinction presented by this answer makes it seem like film execs would have to raise more revenue before they hit profitability than tv execs would, but we still think they're both shooting for profitability, and until we're told otherwise, we're still assuming that profitability would come from number of viewers, so we are still confused why TV execs have a different primary goal.

    7% picked this

  4. Correct

    Television shows make their profits

    Why this is right

    This gives us a meaningful distinction relating to TV execs' profitability goals. Since TV shows make profits from sponsors, and sponsors care less about number of viewers and more about purchasing power of viewers, we can explain a TV exec is more likely to have the primary goal of maximizing the disposable income (i.e. purchasing power) of the audience for their shows.

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

    86% picked this

  5. Over half of the most

    Too Weak

    "Over half of the most popular shows" isn't a particularly strong quantity. What does "the most popular shows" mean? The top 10? So we're saying "at least 6 shows are shows that viewers don't have to pay to watch"? Beyond the fact that the answer only addresses a tiny % of television shows, does it give a reason why TV execs don't have "number of viewers" as their primary goal? What alternative primary goal is being suggested? There isn't one. So this answer doesn't do as much to help explain the paradox as (D) does, because with (D) we actually have a sense of what TV execs are prioritizing instead of "number of viewers", and why.

    5% 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