#16 - Marife: That was a bad movie because, by not providing

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Point at Issue. The correct answer choice is (C)

Marife’s argument is that the movie is bad, because murder mysteries are supposed to provide the viewer with all the information they need to solve the murder, and this one did not do that. Nguyen’s response is not quite so clear. In fact, we do not even learn whether Nguyen liked the movie.

However, we can infer that Nguyen disagrees with Marife about what genre of movie it was. While Marife considered it to be a murder mystery, Nguyen thought the movie was focused on the relationship between the chief detective and her assistant. Rather than the murder being the crux of the movie, for Nguyen the murder just provided the context in which the relationship developed.

The question stem identifies this as a Point at Issue question. The correct answer choice will describe the disagreement between Marife and Nguyen over what type of movie it was.

Answer choice (A): Nguyen expressed no opinion concerning whether the movie was bad.

Answer choice (B): Marife did not discuss the relationship between the chief detective and her assistant.

Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice, because both speakers expressed an opinion about how the movie should be classified, and their opinions conflict. Marife classifies the movie as a murder mystery, while Nguyen does not consider the murder to be a defining characteristic of the film, meaning the film should not be classified as a murder mystery.

Answer choice (D): Neither author discusses whether it is appropriate to try to find criteria that all mystery movies must meet.

Answer choice (E): Neither author expressed an opinion about whether the filmmaker wanted viewers to be able to solve the murder. Marife stated the filmmaker failed to provide viewers all the information necessary to solve the murder, but did not address the question of the filmmaker wanting viewers to be able to solve the murder. Similarly, Nguyen stated the filmmaker wanted viewers to focus on the relationship between the chief detective and her assistant, but this does not mean the filmmaker did or did not want the viewers to be able to solve the murder.

[Barcelona10]

This question starts with Marife and Nguyen then responds.

The answer for this one left me perplexed. The answer is the disagree about "whether the movie should be considered a murder mystery." BUT, Marife is saying that it violated a requirement of a murder mystery, which by implication means not a murder mystery. Then, Nguyen, never indicates that the film IS a murder mystery; if anything, it looks like he is saying that it is not, that is more of a romantic flick of sorts. Can someone explain how C is the answer?

I chose A and E, before even considering C. I realize now that A is no good because N never says anything. But E...it looked good better than C to me.

[Steve Stein]

Hi,

In that one, to simplify the discussion, M says that a particular movie was bad, because it violated a requirement of murder mysteries (providing the info that would allow the viewer to solve the mystery).

As is generally the case with Point at Issue questions, it is vital to understand the second speaker's response. In this case, N takes issue not with the point about violating the requirement, but with the characterization itself.

Since the murder was only there to provide context, Nguyen asserts, the murder "should not be taken as a defining characteristic of the film."

So, M's argument is based on the idea that the movie was a murder mystery, and N argues that murder should not be taken to define the film.

In other words, the two speakers disagree about whether the film in question should be properly classified as a murder mystery.

As for answer choice E, N does not discuss this issue, and doesn't address whether or not there was enough information for the viewer to solve the murder.

I hope that's helpful! Please let me know whether this is clear--thanks!

~Steve

[Barcelona10]

Thank you! Yes, I see now that I should have more carefully tracked exactly what sentence the second speaker is responding to.

[mN2mmvf]

I had the exact same concern as Barcelona10 but I still don't quite understand the PowerScore explanation. Why does it matter exactly what sentence N is responding to? M is saying that the movie isn't really a murder mystery (because it fails the necessary condition of providing info), and N is also saying that the film isn't really a murder mystery either (because the murder was just context). How are they disagreeing about "whether the film should be classified as a murder mystery"?

[James Finch]

Hi MN,

Marife only is given one sentence in the stimulus, so I'm not sure what sentences you or Barcelona could be referring to. Could you elaborate on what you meant?

That aside, the disagreement here lies in that M is saying that the movie is a bad murder mystery, and therefore a bad movie, because it failed to meet all the requirements to be a murder mystery, essentially failing at what seeks to be.

N then argues that the movie's murder is not an essential characteristic but just one plot element, and the movie should not be seen as a murder mystery at all (and therefore not judged by murder mystery standards) but as something else, perhaps a character drama or buddy movie or something similar. Answer choice (C) correctly sums up this fundamental disagreement between M and N.

Hope this helps!

[Adam Tyson]

I'll add my two cents here and point out that M wouldn't be talking about violating the requirements for a murder mystery unless she thought it was supposed to be one. As James points out, she isn't saying that it's not a murder mystery, but that it's a bad murder mystery. N is saying it's not a murder mystery at all and shouldn't be judged as one.

[sodomojo]

That aside, the disagreement here lies in that M is saying that the movie is a bad murder mystery, and therefore a bad movie, because it failed to meet all the requirements to be a murder mystery, essentially failing at what seeks to be.

As James points out, she isn't saying that it's not a murder mystery, but that it's a bad murder mystery. N is saying it's not a murder mystery at all and shouldn't be judged as one.

This idea is still tripping me up with (C). I see your point, but doesn't Marife's statement set up a conditional saying: murder mystery provide all info necessary? Marife implies that the necessary condition fails, hence she might not ultimately believe that the movie should be classified as a murder mystery.

Couldn't I make an analogous argument saying, that was a bad movie because all action movies have bright and shiny explosions. That movie had no bright and shiny explosions. Wouldn't I be implying that the movie should not be classified as an action movie?

Thanks in advance.

[Claire Horan]

Hi Sodomojo,

I'll take up your analogous argument, and hopefully that will help. Your argument is:

That was a bad movie because all action movies have bright and shiny explosions. That movie had no bright and shiny explosions.

Wouldn't I be implying that the movie should not be classified as an action movie?

The structure of your argument is:

C: That was a bad movie.
P1: All action movies have bright and shiny explosions.
P2: That movie had no bright and shiny explosions.

And I would respond to your question, no, you wouldn't be implying that the movie should not be classified as an action movie. If you implied that, or if you stated it explicitly, it would undermine your conclusion that that it was a bad movie. I agree that, from your hypothetical premises 1 and 2, a person could conclude that the movie should not be classified as an action movie, but then the conclusion doesn't follow (unless you add the premise that if a movie is not an action movie, it's a bad movie).

By the way, I like your technique of coming up with other examples to test out logic! Let us know if you need further clarification on this question.

[JD180]

Hello,

This doesn't make any sense. If x is a REQUIREMENT(necessary condition) for something, then we can do the conditional statement:

something --> x

Do the contrapositive: /x --> /something.

Apply this obvious logic to the situation:
a requirement of murder mysteries is that viewers are provided with all information necessary, therefore:

Murder mystery --> provided with necessary info Do the contrapositive:
/provided with necessary info --> /murder mystery

Marife was not provided with the necessary info, therefore its NOT a murder mystery.

So for everyone who is saying "it was a bad MYSTERY movie" (probably in an attempt to justify C being the answer) - you're simply mistaken. You cannot say that it is a mystery movie if it didn't meet the requirement in order to be a mystery movie in the first place.

I am very critical of all LSAT questions, and this is one where the LSAT makers dropped the ball. There is often 1 or 2 questions on any given LSAT that are flawed in there design.

If you want to catch the questions that are flawed in their designs, I would recommend first practicing so that you have the capacity to catch the flaw in the first place. Then, try to see things from the LSAT maker's perspective, which means picking the answer that you think they are thinking OR (probably a better idea) select by elimination.

I am very willing to redact my statements above given a cogent explanation, but I am quite certain of this one.

Thank you