#3 - Global Reference, Must Be True

[German.Steel]

Returning to this question now as a tutor, this question STILL troubles me more than virtually any other RC question. (C) is my issue - in the final paragraph, the author is clearly displeased that critics are writing reviews under an (often false) expectation that viewers will watch the movie under ideal conditions. From this, I like that (C) tells us that the author thinks the critics should acknowledge mutilations as inevitable - this would help address the problem the author has with the critics' approach to reviews. And yeah I get that "inevitable" is strong, but to my mind, the author spent the bulk of the passage listing out every mutilation imaginable, and while the author might not think mutilations are inevitable for every individual movie, I think it's certainly highly supportable that the author thinks that "mutilations of movies" as a phenomenon is, in fact, inevitable.

Beyond that, (A) is iffy for its own reasons, but I've made my peace with (A), more or less. It's just (C) that still keeps me up at night ripping my hair out (not really )

Am I just being obtuse??? Idk. UGH

[Hanin Abu Amara]

Hi!

First, this is a must be true question which means whatever answer choice you select must be 100% supported using the passage. You are not allowed to introduce new information.

Answer choice C is stating that the critics SHOULD acknowledge the mutilation of film. The author never calls on the critics to take action. While he might be disappointed that they haven't or even mad about it. He never lays out what they should do. So while C might help the author's argument that isn't what you're being asked to do.

Answer choice A, on the other hand, is supported by the evidence because the author is going on and on about how movies are deformed by being viewed in a manner that is a different form how the movie creator intended and the author calls that a deformation that causes problems with the viewing experience. As such the author would agree with the claim that movies should be shown at the exact speed they were intended to be shown to avoid the deformation and the issues caused by deformation.

Hope that helps!

Hanin

[aananbiswas]

Returning to this question now as a tutor, this question STILL troubles me more than virtually any other RC question. (C) is my issue - in the final paragraph, the author is clearly displeased that critics are writing reviews under an (often false) expectation that viewers will watch the movie under ideal conditions. From this, I like that (C) tells us that the author thinks the critics should acknowledge mutilations as inevitable - this would help address the problem the author has with the critics' approach to reviews. And yeah I get that "inevitable" is strong, but to my mind, the author spent the bulk of the passage listing out every mutilation imaginable, and while the author might not think mutilations are inevitable for every individual movie, I think it's certainly highly supportable that the author thinks that "mutilations of movies" as a phenomenon is, in fact, inevitable.

Beyond that, (A) is iffy for its own reasons, but I've made my peace with (A), more or less. It's just (C) that still keeps me up at night ripping my hair out (not really )

Am I just being obtuse??? Idk. UGH

German Steel, I 100% agree with you. I'm having tremendous difficulty understanding this question and simply cannot see how A is better than C. The supposed support from A comes from the line mentioning that showing films at speeds faster than intended is 'detrimental to their integrity.' But this is NOT a prescriptive claim. I don't buy the argument either that what happens in an ideal world is what ought to happen, since this "ideal world" only relates to the exhibition of film in a vacuum. This ignores external considerations such as the networks' profits, or, perhaps, it is the case that showing 10 films at a reduced integrity outweighs showing 6 films at a slightly higher integrity. We simply cannot draw a sweeping, prescriptive conclusion. At least for C, the author says that the tendency to overlook how rarely the ideal conditions apply is 'disturbing,' which strongly implies the normative conclusion that critics ought to acknowledge these problems. I actually got this question right during the exam (and switched it to the wrong answer in blind review) because I thought 'inevitable' in C was too strong. But upon rereading, the author lists 4 or 5 different mutilations, which include translating foreign films, showing films on displays that differ from the intended resolution of the film, etc. We simply don't live in a world where these mutilations are avoidable if public exhibition and distribution of film is to exist. It's unclear whether C refers to mutilation generally speaking or in every possible instance. If it's the latter, then, sure, C is too strong. But the choice between these 2 interpretations is totally arbitrary, and it makes sense to read the answer choice as charitably as possible. I also never got the impression that the author was generally criticizing or taking a stance against film mutilations; obviously, he makes the argument that they can distort a film's intent, but to me the main gist of the argument was combatting the false expectations that follow from the mutilations/ overlooking the fact that they occur in the first place.