I seem to get this kind of questions wrong a lot...
I picked A at first, but when I went back before grading to look over questions I wasn't sure about, I ended up changing it to B.
Will someone explain why B isnt the answer and why A is the answer?
Also, how can I approach this type of questions better next time?
Thanks in advance!
LSAT Forum
3 postsPage 1 of 1
-
- hyewonkim89
-
Thanks Received: 5
-
Atticus Finch
- Posts: 122
- Joined: December 17th, 2012
- Most Thankful
- First Responder
-
- nbayar1212
-
Thanks Received: 22
-
Elle Woods
- Posts: 78
- Joined: October 07th, 2012
- This post thanked 1 time.
Re: Q2 - Sheila: It has been argued that
The reason B doesn't work is that there is no general principle that Sheila is trying to counter in the stimulus. We get an overview of what some people argue i.e. we shouldn't make black and white films color, and then we an example of another situation that Sheila thinks shows why the first position doesn't make a lot of sense. We know it is an analogy since she states "Similarly" towards the end of the stimulus which indicates that she thinks the two situations can be thought of as analogous.
I see why B can be alluring, though, since there may be a principle like "one should never risk damaging the integrity of visual media" or something like that but Sheila doesn't try to show that its OK to damage the integrity of visual media..... she simply says that this situation is not a question of damaged integrity since in a similar case, no one would argue that the integrity of a book is being damaged because a movie is based off of it.
I see why B can be alluring, though, since there may be a principle like "one should never risk damaging the integrity of visual media" or something like that but Sheila doesn't try to show that its OK to damage the integrity of visual media..... she simply says that this situation is not a question of damaged integrity since in a similar case, no one would argue that the integrity of a book is being damaged because a movie is based off of it.
-
- uhdang
-
Thanks Received: 25
-
Atticus Finch
- Posts: 227
- Joined: March 05th, 2015
Re: Q2 - Sheila: It has been argued that
Don't need to identify the Core for Method of Reasoning type, but since this is an argument with a conclusion and it helps to understand the argument better, here is the Core:
No one argues that basing a movie on a novel or a short story erodes the value of the book or story + film adaptation is the new work of its own ==> Similarly, colorized film should be judged on its own merit ==> does not damage the integrity of the original black and white film.
@ Three major assumptions spotted.
1) Author assumes that being argued by no one validates the method. What if it just didn't come up because it is such a widespread way and commonly used to question its effect on the value? The bottom line is that "being argued by no one" is not equal to "being approved"
2) Assumes that basing the story on the movie should be considered same as colorizing the film in terms of judging if it erodes the value or not. What is the standard? Colorizing the film alters the original film, but basing the movie on the story is ONE of the interpretations. The former ALTERS the original but the latter CREATES the original. There has got to be an assumption to bridge these two.
3) The third assumption here is that being judged on its own merit guarantees not damaging the integrity of the original black and white film. Being judged does not indicate the same thing as not damaging the integrity. Colorized films can JUDGED to be damaging the integrity. Subtle term changes.
Answer Analysis
The biggest thing that the author is trying to do in an attempt to logically validate his argument is the use of analogy, comparing film adaptation to colorizing the film. Answer choice with the use of analogy would be a strong candidate.
a) Although a bunch of assumptions were implied in the stimulus, argument does make an analogy to prove his/her point. The word "Similarly" is a powerful indicator that I was able to spot.
b) We neither see “counterexample” nor “general principle.” Not being argued against film adaptation is NOT the general principle. It is merely what is considered to be a socially acceptable (“no one argues that”). Besides, this argument rather utilizes similarities rather than contrast, so "counterexample" is no where to be found.
c) The author uses something similar to a popular opinion but not quite when presenting his argument for the former "film adaptation" point by stating "no one argues that..." But this is closer to fact than an opinion. More importantly, even if we accept this as an opinion, the author doesn't use it when he is presenting his REAL argument: colorizing Black and white films. Not applicable.
d) Language "distinguishes" sounds troublesome. "Similarly" clearly is an attempt to highlight overlapping portion of two comparable cases. Distinguishing it would be closer to contrasting. Regarding "value judgement" and "facts", we can probably make connections of "not damaging the integrity" to be a value judgement, and the fact that no one argues against film adaptation to be the fact. But as mentioned before, the author is rather trying to make the value judgement FROM the fact, NOT distinguish it from the fact.
e) I only see ONE fact, first of all, so "a set of facts" is a stretch. More importantly, as mentioned in b), “general principle” is no where to be found.
As for tips to Method of Reasoning questions, I try to make sure that answer choice can be proven or disproven in reference to the stimulus.
No one argues that basing a movie on a novel or a short story erodes the value of the book or story + film adaptation is the new work of its own ==> Similarly, colorized film should be judged on its own merit ==> does not damage the integrity of the original black and white film.
@ Three major assumptions spotted.
1) Author assumes that being argued by no one validates the method. What if it just didn't come up because it is such a widespread way and commonly used to question its effect on the value? The bottom line is that "being argued by no one" is not equal to "being approved"
2) Assumes that basing the story on the movie should be considered same as colorizing the film in terms of judging if it erodes the value or not. What is the standard? Colorizing the film alters the original film, but basing the movie on the story is ONE of the interpretations. The former ALTERS the original but the latter CREATES the original. There has got to be an assumption to bridge these two.
3) The third assumption here is that being judged on its own merit guarantees not damaging the integrity of the original black and white film. Being judged does not indicate the same thing as not damaging the integrity. Colorized films can JUDGED to be damaging the integrity. Subtle term changes.
Answer Analysis
The biggest thing that the author is trying to do in an attempt to logically validate his argument is the use of analogy, comparing film adaptation to colorizing the film. Answer choice with the use of analogy would be a strong candidate.
a) Although a bunch of assumptions were implied in the stimulus, argument does make an analogy to prove his/her point. The word "Similarly" is a powerful indicator that I was able to spot.
b) We neither see “counterexample” nor “general principle.” Not being argued against film adaptation is NOT the general principle. It is merely what is considered to be a socially acceptable (“no one argues that”). Besides, this argument rather utilizes similarities rather than contrast, so "counterexample" is no where to be found.
c) The author uses something similar to a popular opinion but not quite when presenting his argument for the former "film adaptation" point by stating "no one argues that..." But this is closer to fact than an opinion. More importantly, even if we accept this as an opinion, the author doesn't use it when he is presenting his REAL argument: colorizing Black and white films. Not applicable.
d) Language "distinguishes" sounds troublesome. "Similarly" clearly is an attempt to highlight overlapping portion of two comparable cases. Distinguishing it would be closer to contrasting. Regarding "value judgement" and "facts", we can probably make connections of "not damaging the integrity" to be a value judgement, and the fact that no one argues against film adaptation to be the fact. But as mentioned before, the author is rather trying to make the value judgement FROM the fact, NOT distinguish it from the fact.
e) I only see ONE fact, first of all, so "a set of facts" is a stretch. More importantly, as mentioned in b), “general principle” is no where to be found.
As for tips to Method of Reasoning questions, I try to make sure that answer choice can be proven or disproven in reference to the stimulus.
"Fun"
3 posts Page 1 of 1