Q19 - Film critic: There has been

[cinderellarose14]

I agree that E is the correct answer and I understand why. However I find D also tempting and would like to hear some explanation why D should be eliminated.

Thanks.

[geverett]

I'll give it a try.

Stimulus: There are film makers creating documentaries filled with innaccuracies. The film maker's right to free speech entitles them to create these documentaries, but this does not necessarily mean that anyone ought to pay attention to any of the views in these films.

Answer choices:

D) This answer choice is saying that freedom of speech does not allow these film makers to present these documentaries. This is the opposite of what the film critic says. In the stimulus the author agrees with the filmmakers when he says "Although that claim is true (referring to the previous sentence where the filmmakers claim that the right of free speech entitles them to present these films) This answer choice is the opposite of one of the premises that the film critic cites in support of his conclusion. Also this answer choice does not address the conclusion of the argument.

E) This addresses the principle perfectly. It says basically that just because free speech allows filmmakers to present films filled with all sorts of innaccuracies does not mean that people are [b]obliged[b] to watch them. This fits perfectly with the conclusion of the stimulus which is verbatim: "Although that claim is true (that the right of free speech entitles them to present these innaccurate films), it does not support the conclusion that anyone ought to pay attention to the absurd views expressed in the films."

This answer choice threw me, because I did not see "obliged" and "ought" as being the same thing. I saw obliged as being something that is required while ought seemed more like something that someone would be strongly encouraged to do but not necessarily required to do. Alas I am wrong as any look at the dictionary will show that both terms are synonymous with "must" which of course is a term that connotes a necessary condition.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

The film critic concludes that the claim that people ought to pay attention to the absurd views expressed in a spate of so-called "documentary" films is unsupported. While the film critic does concede that the filmmakers are entitled to express their views, the film critic points out that these films are filled with wild speculations and inaccuracies.

Correct Answer
Answer choice (E) defends the argument from a position that would be devastating if it were true. Suppose expressing views to which one is entitled did oblige others to pay attention to those views, the film critic would be totally undermined.

Incorrect Answers
(A) goes beyond the scope of the argument. The argument is about whether someone is obliged to pay attention to the views expressed in these films, not whether one is justified in making such films.
(B) is too strong. The film critic does not suggest that people should not watch the films, just that the view people ought to watch the views expressed in them is unsupported.
(C) is too strong. The film critic never suggests that the expression of absurd views is necessary.
(D) contradicts the film critic’s argument. The film critic acknowledges that the film makers are entitled to express their views.

[daniel]

Is it correct to classify this question as a PRINCIPLE-Support question?

The question asks which principle "conforms" to the example provided. So, I initially had classified this as a PRINCIPLE-Example. However, when I read the stimulus, I was surprised to find an argument. I felt that I needed to shift gears and find a core in order to identify the assumption/principle that would fit here. Hence, I believe that I did not approach this question as efficiently as I could have, had I correctly classified it. (Or, did I correctly classify it? I'm a little confused!)

I'm wondering whether I approached this correctly or not. The Manhattan LR guide emphasize the concept of "conforming to the conditions," but the language in this question stem threw me off. I normally expect to see words like "supports," "justifies," or "underlies" used in PRINCIPLE-Support questions.

Can someone help clear up my confusion here?