Q26 - Film director: Although

[ohthatpatrick]

What does the Question Stem tell us?
Weaken

Break down the Stimulus:
Conclusion: We're most likely going to make our money back on this very expensive movie.
Evidence: Even if this movie is unpopular, the money we're spending on developing new special FX technology will be worth it, since this technology could be used in future films.

Any prephrase?
The author is saying "Yeah we're putting tons of money into this movie, but even if the movie tanks we'll still get our money's worth because the money has allowed us to develop special FX technology that could be used in future movies". The author is assuming that the new technology will either make us or save us money in the future. We could debate this author by finding any way to argue that the new FX technology does NOT allow us to make our money back .... people don't want it, people pirate it for free, new breakthroughs from other people developing similar technology makes ours have no particular value, etc.

Correct answer:
D

Answer choice analysis:
A) This strengthens. This goes against the idea of "what if it's pirated? what if everyone has access to it through different channels?"

B) This strengthens. This sounds like this movie itself might do well enough to cover our costs.

C) This doesn't weaken because the author already conceded that whether or not we make our money back on this film is irrelevant: we'll make our money back on future films due to this technology we invented.

D) This weakens! This sounds like there WON'T be a market for our technology in future films. We WON'T be selling it to other people or using it ourselves later.

E) This strengthens. This makes it sounds like we made something of value. Other films we make will be cheaper because of it. So it will save us money if we use it and it will give someone else a reason to pay us for the technology for their own film.

Takeaway/Pattern: Once we see the author's argument hinges on "we'll make our money back LATER", we just need to open up our imaginations to ways in which something innovative nevertheless fails to be a revenue creator in the future. Like almost all correct answers to Strengthen/Weaken, this answer does not prove anything. (D) doesn't guarantee us that THIS innovative technology will be abandoned. It just creates some doubt that the new technology will make us money in the future; none of the other answers did that.

#officialexplanation

[ganbayou]

Hi,
I think E is the best one among the 5, but I was not sure about the answer choice either at first because I thought what happened in the past may not be true always...what happened in the past cannot always apply to what would happen in the future.
I thought some LR questions actually have dealt with this issue, so I was not sure why now D can be used as weaker.

Thanks,

[ganbayou]

What does the Question Stem tell us?
Weaken

Break down the Stimulus:
Conclusion: We're most likely going to make our money back on this very expensive movie.
Evidence: Even if this movie is unpopular, the money we're spending on developing new special FX technology will be worth it, since this technology could be used in future films.

Any prephrase?
The author is saying "Yeah we're putting tons of money into this movie, but even if the movie tanks we'll still get our money's worth because the money has allowed us to develop special FX technology that could be used in future movies". The author is assuming that the new technology will either make us or save us money in the future. We could debate this author by finding any way to argue that the new FX technology does NOT allow us to make our money back .... people don't want it, people pirate it for free, new breakthroughs from other people developing similar technology makes ours have no particular value, etc.

Correct answer:
D

Answer choice analysis:
A) This strengthens. This goes against the idea of "what if it's pirated? what if everyone has access to it through different channels?"

B) This strengthens. This sounds like this movie itself might do well enough to cover our costs.

C) This doesn't weaken because the author already conceded that whether or not we make our money back on this film is irrelevant: we'll make our money back on future films due to this technology we invented.

D) This weakens! This sounds like there WON'T be a market for our technology in future films. We WON'T be selling it to other people or using it ourselves later.

E) This strengthens. This makes it sounds like we made something of value. Other films we make will be cheaper because of it. So it will save us money if we use it and it will give someone else a reason to pay us for the technology for their own film.

Takeaway/Pattern: Once we see the author's argument hinges on "we'll make our money back LATER", we just need to open up our imaginations to ways in which something innovative nevertheless fails to be a revenue creator in the future. Like almost all correct answers to Strengthen/Weaken, this answer does not prove anything. (D) doesn't guarantee us that THIS innovative technology will be abandoned. It just creates some doubt that the new technology will make us money in the future; none of the other answers did that.

Okay...it's interesting because this kind of reasoning is "flaw" right? I saw a lot in flaw questions...
But it can be used as a weakener?
I think that's confused me...while it's flaw, it can be used as weakener?

[mshinners]

Okay...it's interesting because this kind of reasoning is "flaw" right? I saw a lot in flaw questions...
But it can be used as a weakener?
I think that's confused me...while it's flaw, it can be used as weakener?

Yep, pointing out a flaw in someone's argument is an effective way of weakening that argument. In fact, in ID the Flaw questions, we often have answers that start with "...ignores the possibility..." and then goes on to present a possibility that, if true, weakens the argument! There's a lot of overlap between all Assumption-family questions, especially Flaw/Weaken(/Strengthen).

[ganbayou]

Okay...it's interesting because this kind of reasoning is "flaw" right? I saw a lot in flaw questions...
But it can be used as a weakener?
I think that's confused me...while it's flaw, it can be used as weakener?

Yep, pointing out a flaw in someone's argument is an effective way of weakening that argument. In fact, in ID the Flaw questions, we often have answers that start with "...ignores the possibility..." and then goes on to present a possibility that, if true, weakens the argument! There's a lot of overlap between all Assumption-family questions, especially Flaw/Weaken(/Strengthen).

Um...that's not what I meant actually...
I was not sure this idea is flaw in flaw question→"what happened in the past may not be necessarily true in future", but in this question this idea is used as efficient weaker....why??? Past cannot predict future right?
Isn't it a flaw? why flaw reasoning can be used as weakner?

[mshinners]

Okay...it's interesting because this kind of reasoning is "flaw" right? I saw a lot in flaw questions...
But it can be used as a weakener?
I think that's confused me...while it's flaw, it can be used as weakener?

Yep, pointing out a flaw in someone's argument is an effective way of weakening that argument. In fact, in ID the Flaw questions, we often have answers that start with "...ignores the possibility..." and then goes on to present a possibility that, if true, weakens the argument! There's a lot of overlap between all Assumption-family questions, especially Flaw/Weaken(/Strengthen).

Um...that's not what I meant actually...
I was not sure this idea is flaw in flaw question→"what happened in the past may not be necessarily true in future", but in this question this idea is used as efficient weaker....why??? Past cannot predict future right?
Isn't it a flaw? why flaw reasoning can be used as weakner?

Ah, got it!

We can't use what has happened in the past to definitively prove what is going to happen in the future. However, we can use what has happened in the past to weaken an argument by setting a precedent. So while the past cannot accurately predict the future, it can anticipate it. Here, the fact that past situations have resulted in the SFX technologies being abandoned sets a precedent that makes it less certain that the latest film will recuperate the costs in the development of the technologies. As you stated, we can't say for certain that it won't happen since the past situation won't 100% mean we can't change things in the present. But we're only looking to weaken the argument, and having precedent where the director's argument didn't actually pan out is a good way to do so.

[JorieB701]

Awesome explanation ^^, thank you!


But also, isn't "many" generally a pretty crappy weakener or strengthener? I feel like the concept of having some, or a few, or many of something that runs contrary to what is being concluded in the stimulus, is often explained as not being good enough or strong enough to weaken or strengthen an argument.

I definitely think this is the only viable answer for this question but I'm clearly missing something.

When is a some or in this case "in the past, many.. were abandoned.." --enough to weaken an argument and when does it not do enough? Are there rules for this?

[ohthatpatrick]

Yes, the rule is the same throughout all of LR and RC: pick the best available answer.

So you’re correct to be mindful of how little force words like “some” / “many” usually have. But if you have a “some” answer that provides at least SOME weakening force, and no other answer choice supplies more weakening force, than the “some” pick is correct.

“Some/many” can have a lot of force if the conclusion is particularly certain of itself. If I’m concluding that “ANYONE who takes my class will see their score improve”, then the idea that “some people who have taken Patrick’s class in the past have not seen their score improve” is actually a pretty strong weakener.

In this case, the author’s conclusion isn’t certain, but it’s very confident. So “many” counterexamples to what he’s envisioning are actually still fairly damaging.

(But don’t let that last part dilute what I was initially saying, which is just “Pick the best answer … don’t get hung up on exceptions to general tendencies”)