#MovieFailMondays: Scream (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?
Before Dawson’s Creek, The Following, and Scream 2, Kevin Williamson forged a name for himself with the classic horror film, Scream.
Released in 1996, Scream told the tale of a series of grisly murders in Woodsboro, California. Opening with the iconic scene where Drew Barrymore answers, “What’s your favorite scary movie?” before engaging in the most upsetting episode of Jeopardy! ever, the body count adds up as the killer, Ghostface (not to be confused with Wu-Tang Clan’s Ghostface Killah), goes on a killing spree.
Unlike most other horror movies, however, Scream has a sense of humor about the genre. The characters are self-aware and lampoon the tropes of the regular slasher film (while simultaneously falling pretty to them). They even discuss the three rules of surviving a horror film, which, ironically, are rather similar to the rules many people impose on themselves while prepping for the LSAT!
And while Wes Craven – the film’s director – is busy eviscerating the teenagers as is his wont, Kevin Williamson makes sure there’s enough humor to keep the film on the right side of satire while still having a solid plot – and a huge reveal at the end!
How did he manage to keep the whodunit aspect of the film going to the end? By playing off of two common logical fallacies – temporal flaws, and exclusivity flaws. Both are strongly related here. In the normal slasher flick, there’s only a single killer. Figuring out who it is usually involves slowly winnowing down the suspects, until only one person is left as the possible perpetrator. By introducing a second killer, Williamson made us fall for both of these flaws! One flavor of the exclusivity flaw is when it is assumed that there is only one possibility. By neglecting other options without ruling them out, many arguments on the LSAT fall into this flaw. Here, by neglecting to consider the possibility of multiple murderers (or, alternatively, by only considering the possibility of a single murderer), we all fell for this flaw. Even Jamie Kennedy, who knew more about horror movies than anyone else, didn’t see it coming. And, similarly, this is related to a temporal flaw. When you assume that things will continue to conform to patterns they had in the past, you commit one type of temporal flaw. Just because things are usually done a certain way, doesn’t mean they’ll continue to fall into that pattern. Williamson changed up a central facet of many slasher films by splitting the murdering duties between two culprits.
The takeaway in all of this? When answering questions on the LSAT, make sure that the argument is taking all possibilities seriously. Look out for arguments that settle on a single solution, when there might be more than one. And just because there is a trend in a particular direction doesn’t mean it will continue into the future.
As for me, I’m done with this blog post for the day. But I’ll be right back…
Want less entertaining, more academic resources to prepare for the LSAT? Click here, or check out our upcoming trial classes.
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!