PT157 S3 Q19 ExplanationIf a film is accepted by

Answer choices, explained

1. A

   Bad Validity Match8% picked this

   If a film has a good story, it will be praised by critics. If a film is praised by critics, it will do well

   This argument negates the necessary condition (not do well at the box office) and concludes the sufficient condition is negated (not a good story). That is the contrapositive -- a valid inference. The original argument commits an illegal negation by denying the sufficient condition (not accepted) and concluding the necessary condition is negated (not recoup). A valid argument cannot match the pattern of a flawed argument. The structure here is: good story leads to praised, praised leads to do well, not do well, therefore not good story. That chain of contrapositives is logically sound.

   8%
2. B

   Correct65% picked this

   If a film features several stars, it will be successful at the box office. A box office success has a long run at theaters.

   Why this is right

   This argument replicates the original's flawed structure precisely. The chain is: several stars leads to successful, successful leads to long run. The argument then negates the sufficient condition (not several stars -- only one star) and concludes the final necessary condition is negated (not long run). This is the same illegal negation as the original: accepted leads to distributor buys leads to recoup, not accepted, therefore not recoup. In both cases, the sufficient condition is denied and the argument incorrectly infers that the necessary condition must also be denied. The film with one star could still have a long run for reasons unrelated to its star count, just as the original film's backers could recoup through means other than festival acceptance.

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

   65%
3. C

   Bad Flaw Match5% picked this

   If a film is directed by a talented artist, it will be praised by critics. If a film is praised by critics, it will

   This argument affirms the necessary condition (did well on video) and concludes the sufficient condition is true (directed by a talented artist). That is an affirming the consequent error -- a different flaw from the original. The original denies the sufficient condition and concludes the necessary is denied (illegal negation). This answer commits a reversal flaw, not the same illegal negation. The structure is: talented director leads to praised leads to do well, did well, therefore talented director. Both are conditional logic errors, but they are different errors.

   5%
4. D

   Bad Evidence Match18% picked this

   If a film is a box office success, then one of its stars is nominated for an award. If a star receives an award,

   This argument has a more fundamental problem than just the conditional flaw. The first premise says if a film is a box office success, then a star is "nominated" for an award. The second premise says if a star "receives" an award, the film does well on video. "Nominated" and "receives" are different conditions -- being nominated for an award is not the same as receiving one. The original argument's chain is seamless: the necessary condition of the first premise (distributor buys) is the sufficient condition of the second premise (distributor buys). Here, the chain is broken by a term shift between "nominated" and "receives." This additional flaw makes the pattern a poor match.

   18%
5. E

   Bad Validity Match5% picked this

   If a film has a big budget, it will be heavily promoted. A heavily promoted film will be released all over the country at

   This argument correctly connects two conditionals: big budget leads to heavily promoted, heavily promoted leads to released countrywide. It then affirms the sufficient condition (big budget) and concludes the final necessary condition (released countrywide). This is a perfectly valid inference -- affirming the antecedent and following the chain forward. The original argument is flawed because it denies the antecedent. This argument is valid because it affirms the antecedent. A valid argument cannot parallel a flawed one.

   5%