Some video game makers have sold the movie rights for popular games. However, this move is rarely good from a business perspective. After all, StarQuanta sold the movie rights to its popular game Nostroma, but the poorly made film adaptation of the game was hated by critics and the public alike. Subsequent versions of the Nostroma video game, although better than the original, sold poorly.The reasoning in the argument is most vulnerable to criticism in that the argument
(A) draws a general conclusion on the basis of just one individual case
(B) infers that a product will be disliked by the public merely from the claim that the product was disliked by critics
(C) restates as a conclusion a claim earlier presented as evidence for that conclusion
(D) takes for granted that products with similar content that are in different media will be of roughly equal popularity
(E) treats a requirement for a product to be popular as something that ensures that a product will be popular
A. Correct. You're absolutely right. The argument committed the hasty generalization flaw—drawing a broad conclusion based on a single example. That’s a textbook logic error.
B. Contradicts the Stimulus.You're right to reject this. The argument explicitly said the movie was hated by both critics and the public. So pretending it was just one group misrepresents the argument.
C. Circular Reasoning? Nope.You nailed this. Circular reasoning is rare and looks like the conclusion simply restating the premise in different words. That didn’t happen here.
D. Unclear / Not Applicable.Totally fair to be confused here. The example suggests flawed analogy, but that’s not present in the original argument.
E. Sufficient vs. Necessary Confusion? Also no.You correctly called this out. That flaw involves mistaken conditional logic, like assuming having a necessary condition guarantees the result. That structure wasn’t part of the original argument at all.
