Question

highest-grossing films in a language other than english at us box office
title | lifetime gross earnings | opening weekend box office earnings | us release date | director | oscar nominated?
eat drink man woman | $7,294,403 | $155,512 | august 3, 1994 | ang lee | yes
huevos: little rooster’s egg-cellent adventure | $9,080,818 | $3,424,702 | september 4, 2015 | gabriel riva palacio, rodolfo riva palacio | no
instructions not included | $44,467,206 | $7,846,426 | august 30, 2013 | eugenio derbez | no
crouching tiger, hidden dragon | $128,078,872 | $663,205 | december 8, 2000 | ang lee | yes

few of the most commercially successful films in us movie theaters are in a language other than english. one journalist claims that to overcome what director bong joon-ho calls “the one-inch-tall barrier of subtitles,” it is essential for a film to receive an oscar nomination: non-english language films that are not given this public indication of high quality will struggle to find an audience compared with those that do receive oscar nominations.

which choice best describes data from the table that weaken the journalist’s claim?

a. crouching tiger, hidden dragon, which was recognized by the oscars, had lower opening weekend earnings but higher lifetime earnings than huevos: little rooster’s egg-cellent adventure, which was not recognized by the oscars.
b. instructions not included was not recognized by the oscars but had higher lifetime earnings than eat drink man woman, which was recognized by the oscars.
c. although the opening weekend earnings were $7,846,426 for instructions not included and $3,424,702 for huevos: little rooster’s egg-cellent adventure, neither film was recognized by the oscars.
d. although both crouching tiger, hidden dragon and eat drink man woman were recognized by the oscars, crouching tiger, hidden dragon had higher lifetime earnings.

a 〇
b 〇
c 〇
d 〇

Explanation:

The journalist claims non - Oscar - nominated non - English films struggle for audience. To weaken this, we need data showing a non - Oscar - nominated film performing well (not struggling) or an Oscar - nominated film not outperforming non - nominated.

• Option A: Compares an Oscar - nominated (Crouching Tiger) and non - nominated (Huevos) film. Crouching Tiger has higher lifetime earnings, which supports the journalist's claim (Oscar - nominated does better), so A is out.
• Option B: Instructions Not Included (non - Oscar - nominated) has higher lifetime earnings than Eat Drink Man Woman (Oscar - nominated). This shows a non - Oscar - nominated film can do better, weakening the claim that non - nominated films struggle.
• Option C: Just states neither was Oscar - nominated, no info on audience struggle or performance, so C is out.
• Option D: Compares two Oscar - nominated films, not relevant to the claim about non - nominated films, so D is out.

Answer:

B. Instructions Not Included was not recognized by the Oscars but had higher lifetime earnings than Eat Drink Man Woman, which was recognized by the Oscars.