#6 - Concept Reference, Must Be True, Author's Perspective

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

The correct answer choice is (C). The second paragraph has what you need. The author would surely say not to dub the film into Russian, because that is "a significantly more profound intervention" than subtitling, possibly causing more damage. He dislikes any form of reediting, and he is also opposed to changing the title because that may give a false impression.

Answer choice (A): Answer A is out - the author is opposed to changing the title.

Answer choice (B): Answer B is out because there is no evidence in the passage that the author would suggest anything about critics getting to see it first.

Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice. Answer C is a contender. I don't know if the author would say the film SHOULD be subtitled, but if it is then he would certainly agree that any such subtitling should be done carefully to avoid those problems.

Answer choice (D): Answer D might be a contender, although there is little evidence that the author would give such a strong, blanket recommendation. If not subtitles, then what? Should the audience be left completely unable to understand the dialogue? There seems to be no better alternative - remember, dubbing is even worse. Is there any evidence that the author would say a Russian-speaking audience should be denied any opportunity to enjoy an Italian film?

Answer choice (E): Answer E is out - the author is clearly against any reediting.

[lsat12345]

Where is the support in the passage for C?

[Adam Tyson]

The second paragraph has what you need, lsat12345. The author would surely say not to dub the film into Russian, because that is "a significantly more profound intervention" than subtitling, possibly causing more damage. He dislikes any form of reediting, and he is also opposed to changing the title because that may give a false impression.

His only complaint about subtitles is that they "may be simply incompetent, full of mistakes, or used for actual censorship" (emphasis added), so if those pitfalls can be avoided our author might be okay with it. At least, that would appear to be the least damaging choice to make in this hypothetical situation.

Answer A is out - the author is opposed to changing the title.

Answer B is out because there is no evidence in the passage that the author would suggest anything about critics getting to see it first.

Answer C is a contender. I don't know if the author would say the film SHOULD be subtitled, but if it is then he would certainly agree that any such subtitling should be done carefully to avoid those problems.

Answer D might be a contender, although there is little evidence that the author would give such a strong, blanket recommendation. If not subtitles, then what? Should the audience be left completely unable to understand the dialogue? There seems to be no better alternative - remember, dubbing is even worse. Is there any evidence that the author would say a Russian-speaking audience should be denied any opportunity to enjoy an Italian film?

Answer E is out - the author is clearly against any reediting.

Between answers C and D, C is better. Why? Because if he agrees with answer D, the audience is either completely denied any opportunity to understand the film, or else something worse than subtitling is done. With answer C, the audience gets to understand the film, and the problems associated with subtitles are minimized.

Remember that with this question, we do not need to prove that the author would agree with the recommendation in the answer choice. We only need to show that among these five answer choices, it is the one the author is most likely to agree with. Answer C seems like the one to which he would object the least, and that makes it the best answer.

[Juanq42]

Hi!

After reviewing answer C, it does appear to be more obviously the correct answer.

However, I am having trouble identifying how in the final paragraph does not lend support to answer B.

The paragraph opens with "critics rarely speaking about film alterations." Later he identifies 2 concerns, one of which I interpreted as giving reason to making the film available to Italian critics first before the general (Russian-speaking) public .

"First, professional analysis, interpretation, and evaluation may be unfair to filmmakers when...based on a version that has already been seriously altered."

Is answer B wrong because this concern only applies to films ALREADY altered (or in this case translated) while the answer choice suggests before any alterations are done, to have this movie be shown to critics first-- THEN make the changes -- and THEN release it to the public?

Thanks for the help!

[James Finch]

Hi Juan,

(B) is an opposite answer in this case, as the author seems very likely to disagree with it. Why? The last paragraph is arguing that general audiences shouldn't have their hopes raised by critics who are seeing a different, and presumably superior, version of the film. The (B) indicates that the critics would be seeing a different, original version of the film, while the general audience would see a different, Russian-translated version. So the author of the passage would object to that situation because it would raise false expectations based on early critical reviews of a film that is different to the version general audiences would see.

Hope this clears things up!

[karlyroux]

Please help! I don't understand why A is wrong. I get that the author is opposed to changing the title, but the direct quote is that "while others are given new titles rather than translations of their original titles, a practice that often creates false expectations and distort's the work's intent." This seems to imply that new titles are what the author dislikes and considers worse than translations. Since answer A advocates for a translated title, not a new one, and even includes measures to further clarify the work's intent, this seems like exactly something the author would want- or at least the best option for the title. I get why C could be correct, I just don't understand how the explanation about A posted here makes sense. Can you please add more info either as to why A is wrong or why my explanation is wrong? I'm so confused.

[Jeremy Press]

Hi karly,

Great question! There are two problems with answer choice A that make it weaker than answer choice C. First, while I agree with you that the passage favors translated titles over entirely new ones, the author of the passage also makes clear that those titles should be ones that do not create false expectations or distort the work's intent. Answer choice A only refers to an "attempt" to translate the title, so we don't know whether such an attempt will succeed (will avoid false expectations or distortions). In answer choice C, by contrast, we know the subtitles will only be used if "strictly faithful to the original" (one of the author's requirements/concerns).

The other problem with answer choice A is that our author may not necessarily be in favor of just any explanatory materials. The author is likely to insist on faithful (helpful) explanations. Since answer choice A doesn't guarantee that the explanations will fit those kind of criteria, we can't be sure our author will get on board.

Does that clear it up? I hope so!

Jeremy

[Tajadas]

I am having trouble understanding why C is better than A. I kept both as contenders but ultimately chose A.

My main issue with C is that it says subbed "only if" the translation is faithful. I think the reader can be reasonably assumed to know that there are only two ways of translating a foreign movie-- subbing or dubbing. According to this answer, if the distributors don't create a faithful translation, then the movie should not be subbed. If it's not subbed, then only other option then is dubbing, and the author seems unilaterally opposed to dubbing because it's a more profound intervention than subs.

I chose A because even though the author wants to deviate from the filmmaker's intent as little as possible, there's no line in the passage that says titles should not be translated, only that titles should not be changed. It seemed to me that that the author would be unhappy with both choices since they deviate from the filmmakers' intent, but C led me towards dubbing, which the author explicitly dislikes, while A led me to translating the title, which the author might dislike, but we have to assume based off the author's big-picture ideas.

Why is this line of reasoning not correct?

[zsg2@cornell.edu]

I am also having trouble finding the textual support for the affirmative action suggested in C. The only mention of subtitles comes in the second paragraph where the author says "subtitling may be simply incompetent, full of mistakes, or used for actual censorship" all bad things. We do know, however, that Dubbing is "a significantly more profound intervention" that "can be even more damaging [than subtitles]." My question is how that supports subtitling at all? Couldn't it be the case that the author suggests neither of the two as he thinks they are both bad but one is less bad than the other? I guess the assumption we have to make is that one or the other (subtitling or dubbing) is necessary and that assumption is also accepted by an author who is writing a passage about the issues that arise when film's are altered, therefore detracting from the filmmakers original intent. But, the text is silent about that specific assumption. On the contrary, we know the author prefers for titles to be translations of original titles than "new titles" because the latter "often creates false expectations and distorts the work's intent." So, there is no explicit mention of negatives with translating titles into native languages whereas the alternative of a new title is condemned by the author. A seems more supported than C, though I did not like the last part of the answer about including explanatory material as that was not mentioned in the text. Any thoughts here on the extent the text needs to support an answer like this and my reading of the passage?

[Adam Tyson]

There is some evidence in the passage that the author would suggest translating the title faithfully rather than changing it, but no evidence that the author thinks any sort of explanatory material should be included. That portion of answer A is based on pure speculation, not on anything the author said, and that means we cannot infer that the author would ever make this recommendation. If A had said "translate the title accurately rather than changing it," then this would be a good answer, but as it is the latter part of the answer is enough to make it wrong.

This is a frequent trap on the LSAT, especially in RC: answers that start off well and match our prephrases, but which then deviate into new territory that has no support. Don't fall into the trap of selecting answers that are half right and half wrong! A half wrong answer is all wrong.

Answer C has at least some support, if you keep in mind the conditions given to us in the question stem: someone is planning to distribute this Italian film to a Russian audience, and the author is supposed to make a recommendation. So what would they recommend in order to minimize the damage? Certainly not the worse option of dubbing the film into Russian, so the only options would be either subtitles or no translation at all.

There is no evidence that this author thinks that not translating the film would acceptable, but the author does at least imply that subtitles could be acceptable if they are not "incompetent, full of mistakes, or used for actual censorship" since those are the author's explicit complaints about the process. The author might be reluctant to suggest subtitles, but would have little choice other than to say "please, please, if you must do this, do it well or not at all." That's the support we need for answer C. It's based on the text with no new information and it fits with the author's concerned tone about not damaging the film. We don't know that the author would say this, but there is also nothing wrong with the answer the way there is with answer A, so it is the better choice.