Q4 - Film director: It's inaccurate to say

[mshinners]

Question Type:
Strengthen

Stimulus Breakdown:
Conclusion (rephrased): The reviews weren't the cause of the low film attendance.
Premises: The film didn't have wide appeal and it opened against similar films.

Answer Anticipation:
This question asks us to strengthen the explanation, so let's focus on the premises (appeal/competition) rather than conclusion (reviews). Sometimes, the question stem subtly points us to focus on something from the argument - this is one of those cases!

With that focus, I'm expecting the answer to give a reason why limited appeal and the competition actually would lead to a decrease in ticket sales.

Correct answer:
(B)

Answer choice analysis:
(A) If anything, weaken. While this doesn't actually weaken the explanation, if anything, it points at the reviews being the issue, which is what the director says wasn't the problem.

(B) Boom. This wouldn't be a first-pass pick, but it does give a reason that competition would impact the film - moviegoers pick one film and only go to that one. If that's the case, then the similar films releasing against the director's would impact overall performance.

(C) Out of scope. The question asks us to strengthen the explanation; this answer gets more at the details of the thing that needs explaining.

(D) If anything, weaken. This answer choice, if anything, provides evidence that it was the reviews.

(E) Out of scope. The argument just talks about who the film appeals to, but it never states those people are only drawn to the film. Even if it did, this would be more on the weaken side by calling a premise into question (though that's not something the LSAT lets you do).

Takeaway/Pattern:
Be sure to always read and digest the stem! Some have additional information about your task - here, they want you to focus on the explanation of the director, not the overall argument.

#officialexplanation