Critic: The criticism of the popular

Answer choices

1. A

   Opposite2% picked this

   Films should be judged on how well they accurately capture

   This sounds more like the opposite of what we want. By this principle, you should criticize the film for being unrealistic.

   2%
2. B

   Weak Conclusion Match Bad Evidence Match2% picked this

   Films are successful as long as they

   This gives us a rule that says popular ? successful We know that Quirks was popular, so by this rule we can say it was also successful. We're not trying to conclude, "This film was successful". We're trying to conclude "it was dumb to criticize this for being unrealistic". However, the correct answer also is a rule that allows us to derive that Quirks was successful, so that can't be the reason we pick (D) over this answer. It's more about the lack of a premise match here, compared with a solid premise match in (D). And it's somewhat about the meaning of "success". Correct answers to Principle questions are all about connecting the Evidence language to the Conclusion language. The detail that Quirks is "popular" is not part of the Evidence. It's just a modifier used to introduce the noun Quirks in the first sentence. In defending the movie, does out author care that it was popular? No. That's just a tangential detail. In defending the movie, our author cares that it was funny, which is the important thing for a comedy to achieve. The sort of 'success' this answer is talking about sounds more like commercially successful, whereas the sort of 'success' that (D) is talking about sounds more like artistically successful. When it comes to shutting up critics who are nitpicking at the film's lack of realism, it's more important to tell a critic that a film was artistically successful than it is to say it was commercially successful.

   2%
3. C

   Bad Conclusion Match19% picked this

   Film comedies should find their humor in their

   The conclusion isn't about instructing comedies where they should find their comedy. The conclusion is about telling critics "they shouldn't criticize a funny comedy for being unrealistic." We actually don't even know if Quirks finds its humor in its stylistic portrayals; we only know that the film has stylistic portrayals and is funny. The former isn't necessarily the main reason for the latter.

   19%
4. D

   Correct76% picked this

   Films are successful if they succeed within

   Why this is right

   Well, I'm taken aback that we're using the idea of "the film was a success" as a match for our conclusion, "It's dumb to criticize the film for being unrealistic". This rule applies to movies that succeed within their genre. Did Quirks succeed within its genre? Yes. The "important thing for a comedy" is to be funny, and Quirks was funny. So this answer allows us to conclude that Quirks was a successful film. Does that prove the conclusion? No. But it strengthens the conclusion. If the film was successful (we don't mean in terms of box office revenue, but in terms of its aesthetic purpose), then a film critic starts to seem misguided for being picky about realism.

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

   76%
5. E

   Bad Conclusion Match1% picked this

   Films should try to stay entirely within a

   The argument isn't offering advice to filmmakers about how they should make a movie. It's trying to shut down critics who are complaining that a funny comedy is unrealistic. Assuming that Quirks stayed entirely within the single genre of comedy (which is not definitively established), this answer would just allow us to conclude, "When it comes to adhering to a genre, Quirks did what it was supposed to do." It doesn't help us to argue that, "When it comes to realism, this film need not be criticized."

   1%