Logical Reasoning

PT141 · S2 · Q3 Some video game makers

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

Some video game makers have sold the movie rights for popular games.

Conclusion

Selling movie rights is rarely good business for video game makers.

Evidence

StarQuanta sold the rights to Nostroma, the film flopped, and subsequent Nostroma game sequels (despite being better than the original) sold poorly.

Evaluate

The conclusion is a general claim about all (or most) video game makers selling movie rights. The evidence is one company's experience with one game. A single case can't establish what's "rarely good" across the industry. The argument leaps from one example to a broad rule.

Goal

Find an answer that names the move from a single case to a general conclusion — i.e., the small-sample/anecdote-to-rule flaw.

3.

The reasoning in the argument is most vulnerable to criticism in that the argument

  1. Correct

    draws a general conclusion on

    Why this is right

    This is the flaw. The conclusion is general — that selling movie rights is rarely a good business move — but the only evidence is one company's bad experience with one game. A single case can't establish what is "rarely" the case across an industry. That's the textbook leap from anecdote to general rule.

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

    86% picked this

  2. infers that a product will

    Bad Description

    This says the argument leaps from "critics disliked it" to "the public disliked it." But the stimulus actually says the film "was hated by critics and the public alike" — it doesn't infer one from the other. So this answer mischaracterizes the structure.

    3% picked this

  3. restates as a conclusion a

    Circular Reasoning

    The premise (StarQuanta's bad outcome) and the conclusion (selling rights is rarely good) are different claims — one is about a single company, the other is a generalization about all game makers. The conclusion isn't snuck into a premise. The flaw is a small sample, not circularity.

    2% picked this

  4. takes for granted that products

    Bad Assumption

    This says the argument assumes products with similar content in different media will have roughly equal popularity. But the argument doesn't need or use that assumption — it just notes that the film flopped and that game sequels sold poorly afterward. The argument's real flaw is sample size, not an assumption about cross-media popularity equivalence.

    6% picked this

  5. treats a requirement for a

    Necessary vs. Sufficient

    This describes a "necessary treated as sufficient" flaw — but the argument isn't about what makes a product popular or what guarantees popularity. It's about whether selling movie rights is generally a good business move, supported by one anecdote. Wrong flaw category entirely.

    3% 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