Logical Reasoning

PT152 · S1 · Q7 Editorial: Animated films appropriate for children

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

Editorial: Animated films appropriate for children are those that are innocently whimsical, mischievous perhaps, but not threatening.

Evidence (Since)

Animated films appropriate for children are not threatening.

New animated films aimed at adults have dark themes such as poverty and despair.

Conclusion

Such films cannot be considered appropriate for children.

Evaluate

Huh. I was going to watch an episode of Love, Death & Robots with my niece. I guess we'll watch Shrek instead.

There isn't a conclusion indicator in this argument, but the final sentence follows a common form:

Premise Indicator - Premise - Comma - Conclusion

The premise indicator "since" is followed by a premise. That premise is followed by a comma, which is followed by the argument's conclusion.

If we just look at this premise and the conclusion, we can see a missing link. The premise describes new animated films aimed at adults, but doesn't make any claims about them being appropriate or inappropriate for anyone. The conclusion jumps to a claim about these films not being appropriate for children. "Not appropriate for children" is a new idea in the conclusion.

The conclusion would follow logically if we connect the information in the premise to the new idea in the conclusion with an assumption like this:

However, there's a second assumption to consider. The first sentence in the stimulus connects directly to the conclusion: it's about films being appropriate for children. Because it connects directly to the conclusion, we can treat it as a premise. This sentence states that animated films appropriate for children are not threatening. That's a conditional statement:

appropriate for kids → ~threatening

The contrapositive of this is that threatening films are not appropriate for children.

threatening → ~appropriate for kids

We already know that new animated films aimed at adults have dark themes. If we assume that "dark themes are threatening," and combine this with the two existing premises, that would also allow the conclusion to follow logically:

New animated films aimed at adults have dark themes such as poverty and despair. Dark themes are threatening. Threatening films are not appropriate for children. Therefore, new animated films aimed at adults are not appropriate for children.

Goal

Look for an answer which states that dark themes are not appropriate for children or that dark themes are threatening. Beware of answers that are illegal reversals or illegal negations of one of these assumptions.

7.

Which one of the following is an assumption that would allow the conclusion to be properly drawn?

  1. Films that are whimsical and

    Premise Support

    The first premise already draws a distinction between whimsical or mischievous films and threatening ones. This answer just supports that distinction. It doesn't directly connect any of this information to the conclusion.

    3% picked this

  2. Films that are appropriate for

    Out of Scope Too Weak: seldom

    The argument mentions films that are "aimed at adults." That doesn't necessarily mean that these films are "appropriate for adults." Some people would argue that certain films aren't appropriate for anyone. Also, to make the conclusion 100% follow logically, we need an answer to state that something is not appropriate for children. Anything that is "seldom appropriate" won't completely guarantee the conclusion.

    4% picked this

  3. Correct

    Films that have dark themes

    Why this is right

    This takes the information in the second premise, which states that new animated films aimed at adults have dark themes, and connects it with the first premise, which states that threatening films are not appropriate for children.

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

    92% picked this

  4. Children enjoy films only if

    Out of Scope

    Out of Scope: enjoy Unrelated to Goal The argument does not include any statements about what children enjoy or don't enjoy. An assumption that focuses on this will not have an impact on the argument. This answer also fails to describe anything as threatening, or as not appropriate for children.

    0% picked this

  5. Children do not attend to

    Out of Scope

    Out of Scope: attend Unrelated to Goal The argument does not address the idea of what children "attend to." The argument focuses on the types of movies that are appropriate for children, regardless of whether or not the children are paying attention. This answer choice does not have an impact on the argument. This answer also fails to describe anything as threatening, or as not appropriate for children.

    0% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

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

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