#MovieFailMondays: Star Trek Into Darkness
Every week we bring you a new movie that contains a logical fallacy you’ll find on the LSAT. Who says Netflix can’t help you study?
People didn’t know what to expect when J.J. Abrams was picked to helm the reboot of the Star Trek franchise in 2009. Would it be the gritty reboot of Batman? The campy reboot of Footloose? The angsty reboot of The Incredible Hulk? The Norton-y reboot of The Incredible Hulk?
Instead, we got an action-filled, heartfelt, somewhat confusing reboot of a beloved franchise. The movie made nearly $400 million dollars, and a sequel was all but assured. Four years later, we were treated to the second film in the series: Star Trek Into Darkness.
As is traditional in the sci-fi world (thanks, Empire), the sequel sees the crew of the Enterprise split up because of demotion (Kirk), reassignment (Spock), and arguments over weapons of mass destruction (Colin PowellScotty).
While this is going on, Benedict Khanberbatch is wreaking havoc. Kirk is sent to stop him, only to have the Enterprise disabled by a faulty [insert sci-fi sounding tech thing here]. They (#SPOILERALERT) end up finding out Khan is just a pawn, sent by Admiral Marcus of the Federation. Marcus is holding Khan’s former crew captive in cold storage, motivating the super-human-from-the-past to obey his every command.
After this is revealed, some action scenes happen, and Kirk (#SPOILERALERT) dies. To save him, Spock chases Khan onto Earth so he can steal his blood, and thus turn Bella…wait, wrong movie. He wants the blood, which has restorative powers, to bring Kirk back to life. Huh, didn’t notice how similar this was to Twilight.
But wait, Mr. Spock! You’re usually logical, but you just committed a classic fallacy. You have 72 other super-human Khan-friends in cryo-storage—there’s no reason to think their blood would be any less restorative than Khan’s. Instead of going on an exciting, high-speed chase through the wrecked streets of Earth, why not just use some of their blood?
Spock, in chasing Khan down, committed a classic exclusivity fallacy – he treats a solution that would work as if it’s the only solution. This fallacy is extremely common on the LSAT. If you notice an argument with a conclusion that recommends a given course of action, or picks one option without considering all of the others, you should think about this fallacy. Words that might indicate this problem include “should”, “we must”, and “only (choice).”
Your #MovieFailMonday LSAT questions to try:
PT26, S3, Q14
PT37, S4, Q11
PT50, S2, Q14
PT50, S4, Q5
PT51, S1, Q2
PT51, S1, Q8
PT52, S3, Q5 (the LSAT gets it right!)
PT52, S3, Q22
PT64, S1, Q22
PT65, S1, Q19
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!