#MovieFailMondays: Primal Fear (or, How Movies Can Teach You About Logical Fallacies and Help You Ace the LSAT)
Each week, we analyze a movie that illustrates a logical fallacy you’ll find on the LSAT. Who said Netflix can’t help you study? 🎥📖
Described on Wikipedia as a “neo-noir crime-thriller film”, with each of those terms hyperlinked to a relevant page, Gregory Hoblit’s 1996 film Primal Fear introduced the world to Ed Norton and made the world forget about Richard Gere’s turn as Lancelot in First Knight, among other things.
Primal Fear is the story of an opportunistic, fame-seeking lawyer Martin Vail (Gere) defending the altar boy Aaron Stampler (Norton) accused of murdering an Archbishop (played by Stanley Anderson – yeah, we didn’t know that name either, but click the link and you’ll recognize him). We’re one pipe away from it being a game of Clue!
Because of the prominence of the victim, a lot of political posturing goes on around Chicago while the trial runs its course. Laura Linney, taking a break from loving, actually, plays the prosecutor who is tasked with getting a conviction at all costs.
While researching the case, Vail begins to unveil a scandal that both evokes sympathy for Stampler while providing him with a motive. As he confronts the accused with this evidence, a violent side of Stampler comes out, claiming to be Roy, another personality that developed because of years of abuse.
As the trial goes on, a bunch of coincidences and contrivances allows Vail to force Roy out in open court, resulting in an eventual not guilty by reason of insanity verdict. Which, by our count, is the outcome in about 50% of all movie/TV trials (as opposed to in ~.2% of cases in the real world). Elated with the verdict and the treatment his client is to receive, Vail visits Aaron one last time. The façade slips, however, and Stampler reveals that Roy is the real personality – thus revealing Richard Gere’s logical fallacy!
Vail fell for a classic exclusivity fallacy. Since he had more exposure to Aaron, and had met Aaron first, he assumed that that was the real personality. However, when we’re faced with two options on the LSAT, we can’t just assume that one is the default, even if the author puts it forward as the correct option.
Each time we have to consider alternative explanations on the LSAT, we’re pointing out a reason that the author’s conclusion is flawed.
So when Gere decided to believe Aaron as the “correct” personality, he was neglecting the other possibility, and thus getting a murderer acquitted without good reason.
Let that be a lesson to all of you future defense attorneys! And also for anyone watching an Ed Norton film. 🎥📖
Matt Shinners is a Manhattan Prep instructor based in New York City. After receiving a science degree from Boston College, Matt scored a 180 on his LSAT and enrolled in Harvard Law School. There’s nothing that makes him happier than seeing his students receive the scores they want to get into the schools of their choice. Check out Matt’s upcoming LSAT courses here!