Jenkins maintains that the movie Firepower was not intended to provoke antisocial behavior, arguing that, on the cont...

Ravi on July 25, 2020

@Angelicagdc,

Let's look at (D).

(D) says, "overlooks the possibility that people can act in a way that
is contrary to their expressed interest"

In looking at the argument, the most important word is "intended." We
know that the movie led to antisocial behavior; however, the
conclusion is that the movie intended to lead to antisocial behavior.
Thus, the argument is drawing a false equivalence between what the
movie actually did (lead to antisocial behavior) and what the movie
intended to do (prevent antisocial behavior).

The problem with (D) is that Jenkins is the person who's discussing
the director's interest. However, we don't know anything about what
the director has or has not expressed, so we can get rid of this
choice.

(E) says, "concludes from the mere fact that an action had a certain
effect that the effect was intended by the person who performed the
action"

(E) looks great because we know that the movie resulted in antisocial
behavior. The argument mistakenly concludes that that effect must have
been intended by the movie director, which is a false equivalency.
Thus, (E) is the correct answer.

Does this make sense? Let us know if you have any other questions!