Top Law Schools

Practice test 11, section 4, question 14. I originally chose answer A (the correct answer), but then changed it because I felt that the wording made it seem as if there was causality between social science and paranoia in films (ie trends in social science cause the images of paranoia in films). Is this just a mistake on my part on what the word reflect means? Does reflect simply mean correlation?
Also, I ended up choosing answer D, and can't quite figure out why it is incorrect. Anybody got a good explanation? Thanks for the help.

bump

bumpppppp

please post the question and the options, not just the question number

The social scientists changed their views of paranoia from "ungrounded fear" to "a response to real threats." Consequently, the films reflected the change. There is nothing in the stimulus to support that it is the paranoia that is changing--only the views of social scientists and the portrayal in film. (this is why D is incorrect)

So, what you know is that in the 1960's the feeling of powerlessness was dominant in film, and in the 1970s paranoia was shown as a legitimate response to a world gone mad. Both different portrayals, and answer choice A says exactly that.

SentinelsOfEvil wrote:please post the question and the options, not just the question number

Don't listen to this guy.

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... =6&t=36019

So are you saying that answer A only implies correlation and not causation?

That's how I understand it. "Reflect" is not causal language. In a causal relationship the cause has to make the effect occur. Reflect just shows/mirrors--it doesn't actually induce a change.

Alright now I understand it. Thanks a lot!

Yeah, looking at the answer choices only A or D are remotely possible. Although the interpretation or thoughts behind paranoia are stated to have changed over time, at no point does the passage actually state that "paranoia" changed at all, which D would indicate.

Always go with your first guess. Unless that's wrong.