Q19 - Most movie critics believe that sentimentality

[ohthatpatrick]

Question Type:
Flaw

Stimulus Breakdown:
Conclusion: Critics are wrong to think that sentimentality detracts from aesthetic value (i.e. sentimentality does not detract from aesthetic value).
Evidence: the reason they hold this belief is that most of the many movies they see have sentimentality, so they consider it a refreshing break when a movie doesn't have sentimentality. This is like someone who's accustomed to a common food flavoring suddenly enjoying a food that lacks that flavor and concluding that the flavor was detracting from the quality of the food all along.

Answer Anticipation:
My first reaction comes from seeing, "They're wrong ... After all, the reason they believe this is [dumb]". That's often the setup for an Unproven vs. Untrue flaw. Someone's reason might be dumb, but that doesn't mean their conclusion was wrong. An author would have a separate onus to prove the conclusion was incorrect.

I might believe that water is made of hydrogen and oxygen because I read it on a fortune cookie. The fact that my reason for believing it is dumb doesn't invalidate the truth of the conclusion. An author can't say, "Patrick thinks water is made of hydrogen and oxygen. But he's wrong, since the reason he believes this is he read it on a fortune cookie, which are famous for providing incorrect prognostications."

The other issue we encounter is an Analogy / Comparison. We could question whether the analogy is relevantly similar, but I'm assuming LSAT wants us to say, "So what if you notice an absence of a usual characteristic as a refreshing / interesting change? Maybe that IS evidence that the usual characteristic is not actually a good presence." I used to put flavored creamer into every cup of coffee; then I had a cup without it and enjoyed the difference (and never went back to using the flavored creamers again). It seems like this aberration from the norm actually DID teach me that flavored creamer was detracting from my cup of coffee. So not only could we say that the author can't invalidate the critics' conclusion just because their reason is dumb, we could also say that their reason might not be so dumb in the first place.

Correct Answer:
D

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) There was no appeal to authority in shooting down the critics' argument. That would be like "These critics are wrong. After all, famous music critic Barnaby Cobblepot says that sentimentality is ..."

(B) He does reject a position. He does not do it based on ulterior motive. He does it based on the reason critics have for believing the position.

(C) There was no conditional logic, so get this "nec vs. suff" outta here.

(D) YES, he concluded a view was false. Yes, the evidence was about "the reason they hold this belief", i.e. "how people came to believe it".

(E) There was no conditional logic, so get this "nec vs. suff" outta here.

Takeaway/Pattern: It's a Famous Flaw jamboree! All 5 were from the 10 Famous Flaws: Inappropriate Appeal to Auhtority, Ad Hominem, Conditional Logic flaw (nec vs. suff), Unproven vs. Untrue, and Conditional Logic flaw again.

#officialexplanation