easy · LSAT Logical Reasoning
Critics argue that the movie is poorly written because its plot is predictable. But these critics are themselves failed screenwriters. Thus, the movie's writing is actually quite good.
The argument is flawed because it
- dismisses a position by impugning the personal circumstances of those who advance it rather than engaging with the substance of their claim.
- presumes that whatever view happens to command the agreement of most people must, for that reason and that reason alone, be entirely correct.
- concludes that a particular claim about the film must surely be true solely because no one has yet succeeded in proving that claim to be false.
- never settles upon any clear and workable meaning for the key evaluative term 'predictable' before relying so very heavily upon that term.
- infers that a single counterexample is enough to overturn a generalization that was supported by a wide range of independent cases.
Sign up free to see the explanation and track your rank →
More LSAT Logical Reasoning practice
- Which one of the following can be properly inferred from these statements?
- The question type just described is best identified as which one of the following?
- Which one of the following can be properly inferred from these premises?
- Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the authors' conclusion?
- Which one of the following can be validly inferred from the two conditionals above?
- The reasoning in the argument is flawed in that the argument
- The reasoning in the argument is flawed because the argument
- Which one of the following most accurately describes the relationship the statement establ