Question Type:
Sufficient Assumption
Stimulus Breakdown:
Conclusion: New animated films with dark themes aimed at adults are not appropriate for children. Premises: Animated films appropriate for children are innocently whimsical, possibly mischievous, but never threatening. New animated films aimed at adults have dark themes such as poverty and despair.
Answer Anticipation:
The premise tells us that child-appropriate animated films are innocently whimsical, maybe mischievous, but never threatening. In order to use that premise to conclude that a film is not child appropriate, we have to apply the contrapositive: if threatening, not child-appropriate. To reach our conclusion, we should predict an answer that demonstrates the new animated films aimed at adults are threatening.
Correct answer:
C
Answer choice analysis:
(A) If this is true, it doesn't prove that the new animated films aimed at adults are not child appropriate because it doesn't those films.
(B) If this is true, it also doesn't prove that the new animated films aimed at adults are not child appropriate. This is too broad, and doesn't address the films in question specifically enough.
(C) Bingo! If films with dark themes are threatening, they're not child appropriate. This applies to our new grown up animated films, proving the conclusion. Game. Set. Match.
(D) Out of scope. What kids enjoy is irrelevant.
(E) Out of scope again! What details kids attend to is also irrelevant.
Takeaway/Pattern:
Sufficient Assumption questions are predictable. Find the gap and bridge it! Typically, these arguments will introduce a new concept in the conclusion, but this question shows that doesn't always happen. Here, the conclusion deals with two concepts we have information about: the new films and their level of child-appropriateness. The missing link of that chain is the link between what we know about the new films (dark themes) and what we need to establish in order to deem them inappropriate for kids (threatening).
#officialexplanation