Manhattan Prep Presents… #MovieFailMondays
Logical fallacies are present in our everyday lives. Sometimes, they’re tricking us into switching to Geico. Other times, they’re being used to argue against climate change or for doubling down on red. And they’re definitely used by the writers of the LSAT to create questions.
But they’re not only used for evil! They also appear in our favorite forms of entertainment. Writers of mysteries and suspense use logical fallacies all the time to misdirect the reader/viewer from the ending. Romantic comedies use them to ramp up the tension. Action and sci-fi movies often overuse them, leaving huge holes in their plots.
In our #MovieFailMondays blog series, we’ll take a look at movies that feature a logical fallacy and how we can use this knowledge to score better on the LSAT. You can also use it to smugly say, “Saw it coming!” at the end of the next M. Night Shyamalan movie. If anyone besides you goes to see it.
The Usual Suspects
Bryan Singer released The Usual Suspects in 1995. One of the movies that ushered in the modern era of the #SPOILERALERT, the movie had people discussing the twist ending incessantly. The movie, a story of five criminals (Kevin Spacey, Gabriel Byrne, Benicio del Toro, that other Baldwin – no, not that one, the other one – and that guy who was in that thing…uhm…Jackson Pollock?) who carry out a heist after meeting in a lineup, is framed by Kevin Spacey’s Verbal Kint telling the story to Agent Dave Kujan.
After sitting through a nearly two-hour yarn, we realize (at the same time as Agent Kujan — #SPOILERALERT) that Kevin Spacey was making up the whole story on the spot – every word of it a lie. After Se7en was released a week later, the world would never trust Kevin Spacey again. Of course, that ended when he took on the role of politician Francis Underwood in House of Cards.
To misdirect the audience, Christopher McQuarrie used an age-old literary device – the unreliable narrator. Usually, the device is used for people telling tales they were involved in with embellishment, to make themselves seem more heroic and their enemies cowardly. McQuarrie took it to its extreme, however, in having the narrator be completely unreliable.
On the LSAT, this is an example of a family of flaws generally referred to as Perception vs. Reality flaws. If there’s a question on the LSAT that talks about a person or group’s opinion, belief, or statement, there’s a good chance the test is going to ask you to call bull on it.
If it’s their opinion or belief? There’s a good chance it’s wrong. Just think about the average American – do you really trust their opinion on anything? Anyone with Facebook knows that most people will believe an Onion article.
If it’s something they said? Well, that’s just a reflection of what they believe. Additionally, they could be lying, like our good friend Verbal Kint.
How can we use this on the LSAT? Look out for words that denote we’re dealing with a statement of belief rather than of fact. If you see that, and the conclusion is about the real world, then there’s a good chance it plays off of the perception vs. reality fallacy.
And next time you’re watching a mystery where the story is being narrated by someone involved, impress your friends by smugly revealing the twist in the first five minutes.
Your #MovieFailMonday LSAT questions to try:
PT6, Section 2, #5
PT6, Section 3, #18
PT8, Section 1, #23
PT15, Section 2, #17
PT20, Section 4, #20
PT31, Section 2, #21
PT32, Section 4, #4
June 2007, Section 2, #17
PT52, Section 1, #16
PT57, Section 2, #24
PT64, Section 3, #20
PT72, Section 3, #18
Matt Shinners is a Manhattan Prep instructor based in New York City. After receiving a science degree from Boston College, Matt scored a 180 on his LSAT and enrolled in Harvard Law School. There’s nothing that makes him happier than seeing his students receive the scores they want to get into the schools of their choice. Check out Matt’s upcoming LSAT courses here!