Loading...
Film critic: The essential mark of a great film is that it broadens the psychological horizons of its audience. The usual way to do this is to call into question some of the values or assumptions that the audience members have long taken for granted. Thus, a film that makes the viewer uncomfortable is most likely a great one, since it is inevitably discomforting to have one's core beliefs challenged.
Which of the following is a logical flaw in the film critic's argument?
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
| The essential mark of a great film is that it broadens the psychological horizons of its audience. |
|
| The usual way to do this is to call into question some of the values or assumptions that the audience members have long taken for granted. |
|
| Thus, a film that makes the viewer uncomfortable is most likely a great one, since it is inevitably discomforting to have one's core beliefs challenged. |
|
The critic starts with a definition of great films (broadening psychological horizons), then explains how this happens (challenging long-held beliefs), and finally concludes that uncomfortable films are most likely great because challenging beliefs causes discomfort.
A film that makes viewers uncomfortable is most likely a great film.
The argument assumes that if challenging beliefs causes discomfort, then any film causing discomfort must be challenging beliefs and therefore great. This creates a logical flaw by assuming the reverse relationship - just because A causes B doesn't mean B always indicates A. The critic incorrectly assumes that all discomfort in films comes from belief-challenging, when discomfort could come from many other sources that have nothing to do with psychological horizon-broadening.
Flaw question - we need to identify logical errors in reasoning that make the argument's conclusion not necessarily follow from its premises
The argument makes absolute claims about what makes films 'great' and creates equivalencies between different concepts (challenging beliefs = discomfort = greatness)
Look for gaps in the logical chain where the author jumps to conclusions or makes assumptions that don't hold up. Focus on places where the reasoning breaks down - like assuming all discomfort comes from belief-challenging, or that belief-challenging is the only way to be great, or that the connection between these concepts is as tight as claimed
This precisely identifies the logical flaw in the argument. The critic establishes that great films usually make viewers uncomfortable (through belief-challenging), but then incorrectly concludes that films making viewers uncomfortable are likely to be great. This reverses the logical relationship - just because most great films have a characteristic doesn't mean most films with that characteristic are great. It's like saying 'most professional athletes are tall, so tall people are likely to be professional athletes' - the logic doesn't work in reverse.
This suggests the flaw is overlooking other ways to broaden psychological horizons. However, the critic's main logical error isn't about missing alternative methods - it's about incorrectly assuming that any film causing discomfort must be great. The critic could acknowledge other methods and still make the same reversal error about uncomfortable films.
This identifies an issue about the appropriateness of challenging beliefs, but this isn't the logical flaw we're looking for. The critic's reasoning breaks down not because of ethical considerations about challenging beliefs, but because of the faulty logical connection between discomfort and greatness.
The argument doesn't confuse different meanings of 'great.' The critic uses 'great' consistently to mean films that broaden psychological horizons. There's no evidence of switching between different definitions of greatness throughout the argument.
This suggests the flaw is ignoring that viewers might feel comfortable during great films. While this might be true, it doesn't identify the core logical error. The main problem is the reversal of the logical relationship, not the acknowledgment that great films might have comfortable moments alongside challenging ones.