Q23 - Film preservation requires transferring

[smiller]

What does the Question Stem tell us?
This is a Necessary Assumption question. We're looking for something that must be assumed for the argument to hold.

Break down the Stimulus:
The core of the argument is this:

P1: To preserve old films, they must be transferred from their original material (nitrate) to acetate.
P2: Using this required process, there is no way to preserve all currently deteriorating nitrate films before they disintegrate.

C: Some films from the earliest years of Hollywood will not be preserved.

Any prephrase?
There is one immediate assumption we should notice: the premises are about "currently deteriorating nitrate films," while the conclusion is about "films from the earliest days of Hollywood." The argument depends on assuming that some of the earliest Hollywood films are among the currently deteriorating nitrate films. What if they aren't? Maybe these early Hollywood films are on material that doesn't need to be preserved. Or maybe they have already been preserved. The premises could be referring to an entirely different set of films.

There's another assumption that might not be as easy to spot. The premises are about the present: we know what film preservation "requires" (present tense), and that there "is no way" (also present tense) to transfer all currently deteriorating films. We aren't told that this will always be the case. What if a new, faster process is developed tomorrow, allowing some films to be preserved before they deteriorate?

Correct answer:
The correct answer is (D).

Answer choice analysis:
A) This sounds tempting at first, but it's not necessary to assume that no new technology will ever be developed. We only have to assume that no improved technology will be developed before the old films deteriorate.

B) We are told that transferring old films from nitrate to acetate is required in order to preserve them. We don't need to assume that it is the least expensive way, or that it isn't. According to the first premise, it's currently the only way to preserve them.

C) This also seems tempting. If this answer is a necessary assumption then negating it—making it untrue—should destroy the argument. The negation is, "many films from the earliest days of Hollywood have already been transferred to acetate." This doesn't destroy the argument, since it would still allow the possibility that others have not been transferred, and are still on deteriorating nitrate film.

D) This addresses one of the assumptions that we identified. We have to assume that some of the Hollywood films mentioned in the conclusion could be among the films mentioned in the premises. Let's consider the negation of this answer: "none of the films from the earliest days of Hollywood currently exist solely in their original material." If none of the films mentioned in the conclusion exist solely in their original material, we no longer have any connection between the premises and the conclusion. This means that answer (D) is something we must assume.

E) We don't know if any of the films mentioned in the stimulus are popular or not. This doesn't help us connect the premise to the conclusion.

Takeaway/Pattern: A challenging Necessary Assumption question like this will often have more than one appealing answer. Negating an appealing answer can show us whether or not it is actually necessary.

#officialexplanation

[hwsitgoing]

I am wondering why D is correct. The negated statement does not seem to destroy the argument. "Some films... currently do not exist solely in their original material" does not significantly weaken the conclusion, in my opinion. There could still be a lot that do only exist in their original material.

Thank you!

[pjohnso]

i negated the "some" to "none" which does a pretty good job destroying the conclusion.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Nice work pjohnso!

And just in case you folks need help with the other quantifiers...

Quantifier / Logical Opposite

All / Not All

Some / None

Most / Half of Less

[canylaw]

Why answer choice C is wrong?
thanks for helping.

[andrew.namkung]

C is wrong because EVEN if you negate it,
"Many films from the earliest years of Hollywood have already been transferred to acetate"

then

the conclusion "Some films will not be preserved" can still stay in tact.

What if out of 100 old films, 90 have been transferred? Still 10 films could qualify as "some films" that will not be preserved.

[adarsh.murthy]

Is A wrong because the stimulus says "there is no way to transfer.." (even if a newer faster technology is developed). In other words, if A said "No new technology which is fast enough to save all films before they disintegrate will be dveloped.....", would be a strong contender?

Thanks!

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Is A wrong because the stimulus says "there is no way to transfer.." (even if a newer faster technology is developed). In other words, if A said "No new technology which is fast enough to save all films before they disintegrate will be dveloped.....", would be a strong contender?

Exactly. Answer choice (A) is simply stronger than what is required by the argument. It need not be true that no new technology for transferring old movies from nitrate films to acetate film will ever be developed. The only thing the argument needs is that no such method be developed in time to save all of the films from the earliest years of Hollywood. So if such a method is developed after some of the Hollywood films are lost, the argument's reasoning would still be sound.

Hope that helps!

[kdeclark]

I feel like this is yet another necessary assumption question that LSAC blew it on. Negating D does not destroy the argument.

Suppose that last year the movie industry transferred all of the old movies onto Vtape (a name I made up for a type of film that is neither nitrate nor acetate). This morning, however, we discovered that Vtape is, unfortunately, even less stable than nitrate film. So the project was a total waste, since we won't have time now to convert the movies from Vtape OR the nitrate film to acetate. We're going to lose some of them.

So here's the situation: EVERY film ever made has been duplicated onto Vtape. So NO film is ONLY on nitrate. Yet, conclusion: "some films from the earliest years of Hollywood will not be preserved." Why? Not because at least some of those films "exist solely in their original form," as D says, but because the other form they exist in just isn't helpful.

So D is false and the conclusion still holds. Thus, D need not be assumed for the argument to work. And so it is not a NECESSARY assumption.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

I love the creative thinking you've got here, but there are a couple of requirements of reasoning that you didn't stick to. On assumption questions, it's not just the conclusion that depends on the assumption, it's the argument. So don't just ask yourself, if I negate the answer choice could the conclusion still be true. Instead ask yourself, could the conclusion still follow from the evidence? There will be many necessary assumption questions for which the negation of the correct answer will not disprove the conclusion, but it will destroy the relationship between the evidence and the conclusion - the reason being that you might be able to come up with a hypothetical that goes outside the bounds of the argument that would guarantee the conclusion by some other means.

One more thing here. Your hypothetical goes against the evidence that says, "film preservation requires transferring old movies from there original material - unstable, deteriorating nitrate film - to stable acetate film." Your hypothetical does not conform to this premise, and so cannot be used to suggest that the assumption is not necessary.

I think you'll find that once you make this adjustment to your expectations of the correct answer, these Necessary Assumption questions will be so much easier! Let me know though if you need more clarification on how I'm suggesting you proceed.

[arghuman82]

This is the only question I got wrong on the entire test. It is a retake, but from a little less than a year ago. I know I got this question right the first time, because I keep all my old tests and I just checked. This time around, I was unable to look past the assumption that we apparently needed to make: That the films from the earliest years of Hollywood = old movies.

I have lived in other countries where I am sure that students do not know how long Hollywood and its movies have existed relative to the spectrum of old to not old movies. How is this question fair to them? Common sense does not require any cultural awareness. This question seems to require outside knowledge, actually.

I hope what I just said makes sense and if you can offer any advice on how to look past these things in a universally beneficial manner, that would be great!

[Djjustin818]

I took Matt's advice about applying the negation to the whole argument but I still don't see how it's necessary. If you negate D to "No films from the earliest years of H-Wood currently exist solely in their original material" couldn't some films from the earliest years of Hollywood STILL not be preserved? In this case, it seems like NONE of those films will be preserved? The whole argument just tells us what Film preservation requires. This question is really throwing me for a loop. I'd really appreciate some clarification. Thanks!

[daniel]

I took Matt's advice about applying the negation to the whole argument but I still don't see how it's necessary. If you negate D to "No films from the earliest years of H-Wood currently exist solely in their original material" couldn't some films from the earliest years of Hollywood STILL not be preserved? In this case, it seems like NONE of those films will be preserved? The whole argument just tells us what Film preservation requires. This question is really throwing me for a loop. I'd really appreciate some clarification. Thanks!

More often than not, it helps to focus on the argument core. Here we have:

Some films from the earliest years of Hollywood will not be preserved.

Why?

There is no way to transfer all of the deteriorating films to acetate before they disintegrate.

Why?

Time consuming + expensive.

(NOTE: first sentence is background info, which proves some definitions that set the context for the argument that is to follow. The salient point in this background is: preservation --> transfer to stable acetate.)

Do you see a shift in the scope of the argument as the author moves from the premises to the conclusion? (all deteriorating films to films from the earliest years of Hollywood.)

In this argument, we're told that not all films can be preserved. How can the author, based on this information, conclude that some of the films from a certain period will not be preserved? What if those were the first ones that were preserved? Maybe we should be more concerned about 1950s Sci-Fi b-movies.

If all of the earliest films were already preserved (i.e., none exist solely in their original material), then the conclusion is silly.

(A) extreme. Not ever? That's a long time... certainly the argument doesn't require assuming that film preservation technology will never progress beyond its current point.

(B) Comparison trap. Least expensive? We're told that the process is expensive, but there's really no need to assume anything about how it compares to other ways of preserving them. Besides, those other preservation methods are out of scope, since we're told that transferring the films to acetate is required in order to preserve the films.

(C) is tempting, but this addresses the quantity of films that have already been transferred, but doesn't give an indication as to whether there are any that have NOT been transferred. I think this means the same thing as "some of the films have already been transferred." What happens if you negate it? "None of the films have already been transferred." Wait, that strengthens the argument. Eliminate!

(D) is correct. This means some of the films have not already been preserved. The argument requires assuming that there are at least some films from the earliest years of Hollywood that remain unpreserved. If there were none that were unpreserved, then the conclusion would be false.

(E) out of scope. Popular? most likely? Eliminate.

[tommywallach]

Wow! Great explanation from Daniel here!

-t

[Carlystern]

Nice work pjohnso!

And just in case you folks need help with the other quantifiers...

Quantifier / Logical Opposite

All / Not All

Some / None

Most / Half of Less

What about MANY or FEW?

[tommywallach]

These words don't have opposites. They're meanings are pretty vague.

Many means "more than two," basically.

Few means "not all that many," which is basically useless from a logical perspective (i.e. we really just know there aren't NONE or ONE or A BILLION).

-t

[jrnlsn.nelson]

This one's fairly straightforward and I would say pretty simple if looked at properly. Here's my take:

The key to this one, as is with all Assumption Questions, is to either find an answer choice that connects a new element in the conclusion with the premises (termed Supporter Answer Choices) OR to find an answer choice that defends the conclusion from a possible line of attack (termed Defender Answer Choices). Shout out to Powerscore for this concept and terminology. Whenever I do Assumption Questions this is the method I use and I almost never miss Assumption Questions anymore. Based on the correct answer to this question, this one would be called a Supporter Answer Choice.

Now, take a look at the stimulus (which I'll alter a bit to avoid breaking copyright laws):

"Maintaining films necessitates transferring older films from their original material -- unstable, deteriorating nitrate film -- to stable acetate movies."

The bolded portion and the subsequent dashed portion (which indicates that the stimulus author is giving us a definition of "original material") is critically important. The next two sentences essentially say:

"It is impossible to transfer all of the deteriorating nitrate movies (i.e. the movies that are in the "original material") before they are destroyed. Thus, some movies from Hollywoods earliest days will be destroyed."

Wait a second, originally the stimulus was just talking about movies that are in the "original material" and that these movies would disintegrate. Whereas now the conclusion is talking about Hollywood films. There was no premise in the argument that ever connected these two elements -- this is what you have to see in order to get this, and other assumptions questions like it, correct. If you didn't see this hole in the argument right away no problem. Yet, after reading the question stem and realizing that it's an assumption question, it's crucially important that you go back and try to spot a hole in the argument (which is usually in the form of a new piece of information that is introduced in the conclusion and not explicitly tied to the premises, just as it is here). If you don't see a blaring hole in the argument, then you should be on the lookout for a Defender Answer Choice.

Now look at the correct answer, it does exactly what a Supporter Answer Choice is supposed to do, it connects the rogue piece of information in the conclusion (i.e. "Hollywood films") to our premises (specifically the "original materials"):

(D) says: "Some movies from Hollywood's early years are ONLY in their original material."

This was never specified in the stimulus and is the exact assumption that the argument requires in order to be logically sound.

I hope this helps.