#3 - Global Reference, Must Be True

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

The correct answer choice is (A).

Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice. (A) is directly supported by lines 41-44 ("under ideal conditions"), which imply that the best way to show/view a movie is under the conditions intended by the filmmakers. And speeding up a movie is "detrimental," according to the passage.

Answer choice (B):

Answer choice (C): The issue with (C) is that it's simply too strong--line 10 indicates that mutilation can happen, and based on the examples given throughout the passage, often does, but there's nothing to indicate that it's inevitable. Moreover, we're also told that most critics and audiences have already tacitly accepted these mutilations, indicating that there's no need to point out that the mutilations are inevitable.

Answer choice (D):

Answer choice (E):


This explanation is still in progress. Please post any questions below!

[lsat12345]

What makes A better than C, and where is the support for A? I know in line 33 the author talks about how it's bad, but they never mention that it SHOULDN'T be slowed down.

[James Finch]

Hi LSAT12345,

The issue with (C) is that it's simply too strong--line 10 indicates that mutilation can happen, and based on the examples given throughout the passage, often does, but there's nothing to indicate that it's inevitable. Moreover, we're also told that most critics and audiences have already tacitly accepted these mutilations, indicating that there's no need to point out that the mutilations are inevitable.

(A), on the other hand, is directly supported by lines 41-44 ("under ideal conditions"), which imply that the best way to show/view a movie is under the conditions intended by the filmmakers. And as you note, speeding up a movie is "detrimental," according to the passage.

Hope this clears things up!

[jrschultz14]

Hi! This question brings forward a confusion that struck me throughout the passage. My reading of the MP was that the author says many mutilations can happen, and as a result, critics should recognize and not overlook this fact in their written critiques of film. I think my misconception came from the last paragraph when the author says "we tend to overlook how rarely ideal conditions apply, and this is disturbing for two reasons."

Was it too much to pull from this that the author's MP is that critics should not overlook this fact when writing their critiques? Because when I was looking at this and later questions, my focus was on ACs that specifically called upon the critics needing to acknowledge this phenomenon, as only then would their impressions be fair / not affect the audience's experience.

This discrepancy led to me thinking AC C, despite being more strongly worded than I would have liked, was more in line with the author's overall MP, as opposed to AC A. I figured that AC A was more in line with what you would expect the author's MP would be if paragraph 4 didn't expand on the argument.

Any advice about where my breakdown of the argument went wrong, and thoughts about how I can straighten out this type of misconception re: the author's MP in future passages would be incredible. Thanks!

[German.Steel]

The thing about "inevitable" is tricky because, sure, the author wouldn't agree that mutilations are inevitable in every movie...however, I think the idea that "mutilations" as a phenomenon pertaining to movies, is in fact something the author would see as inevitable.

I think perhaps a previous poster was correct that the crux of the matter is "should acknowledge" though...it's important (and easy to miss) the fact that the author has mentioned that critics and viewers already "tacitly accept" [mutilations].

This does raise a question though - are there any clues, or good ways to determine, when a question will require you to fish out evidence from multiple locations in the passage? Because most questions have a specific line reference, or paragraph reference, but some of the most challenging questions require you to sift through information from multiple precise places to confirm the correct answer. Thanks in advance!

[Robert Carroll]

jr,

I think the discussion of the Main Point of the passage is not actually particularly relevant to why answer choice (C) is not the correct answer here. Look at the answer to question #1, the primary purpose: answer choice (D). So the author's purpose is to highlight a problem with films that's often overlooked. The author seems to be informing us about a problematic way films can be shown to warn us that we should be more careful in how we evaluate them. Beyond that, I don't see any further point the author is actually making. Coming back to question #3, we know that films often are mutilated in certain circumstances, and the author wants critics and audiences to be aware of that fact. But is that fact inevitable? To say it's inevitable would be to be committed to the idea that it won't change in the future. This is why I think the information from question #1 is so relevant - the author is describing what has happened in the past to caution people in the future as to how to avoid certain misinterpretations. The author is trying to induce more informed interpretations in the future. That's doesn't require mutilations to keep happening - mutilations of films that have already occurred would already be enough to create a danger of misinterpretation. So answer choice (C) is claiming a fact will be true in the future when the author only says it's often been true in the past. This is adequate to reject the answer.

German.Steel,

I think my response to jr covers your first two paragraphs. Let me know if anything is unclear!

As far as your third paragraph, the idea that a concept may be discussed in multiple places, often only directly referenced in one but discussed further somewhere else, is what we at PowerScore call the idea of a "Hidden Reference". There are no universal answers to where information could be - anywhere in the passage that discusses info relevant to answering a question is fair game! One thing I will say is that you want to be careful staying too close to a "specific reference" area - often the specific reference is saying something like "It can be inferred that the biologists mentioned in line 10 hold which one of the following views?" The reference is telling you that we're talking about the viewpoints of biologists who are mentioned in line 10, but there's no indication in that question that the answer has to come from line 10. The biologists are named in that line, but any info, anywhere, that involves their views could be right!

To some extent, knowing where the find the answer involves a good initial reading of the passage, including note-taking, underlining, and highlighting. Then, when a question asks something, you'll have a good impression where to go back to to answer the question.

Robert Carroll

[German.Steel]

Thanks Robert, that's very helpful.

Coming back to this a few days later, I'm still somewhat troubled by (A), and trying to justifying the author agreeing with a normative claim about the way films should be shown. However, I do think the strong language sprinkled throughout P2 and P3 can buttress the idea that the author would agree with such a normative claim. For instance: "mutilated," "damage," "more damaging," "distorts," "suffers," "deformations," "harmful," and "detrimental to the integrity of a film." Granted, none of those are normative claims per se, but they do strike me as being normative-adjacent at the very least.

I also have to circle back (like Jen Psaki) to the discussion of "under ideal conditions" though. I'm not actually sure that does support (A). Is it necessarily a normative claim to say that "under ideal conditions, a certain thing will happen"? I'm actually not sure. Like if I said "under ideal conditions, I would own 17 yachts and marry a Ukrainian supermodel," can that really be understood as a normative statement about what I think SHOULD occur?

I'm probably venturing out into the weeds too much on this one, but would appreciate any feedback. Thanks again!

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi German Steel,

We can read "under ideal conditions" here in relation to the passage as a whole. The author spent the majority of the passage discussing ways in which films were not shown under the ideal conditions. Dubbing, changing the speed, and other alterations to the film itself were mentioned as problematic and negative changes to the art. Given the language used when discussing changing the speed--he uses the word "detrimental"--we can easily say that the author would see that change as "not ideal." He would, therefore, think it would be ideal to NOT change the speed of a film, which is what answer choice (A) describes.

Hope that helps!

[christinecwt]

Hi Team - may I know why Answer Choice B is incorrect given that the passge mentioned that those cirtics comments are "based on a versiou that has already been seriously altered" (which I suppose it referred to the distributed version).

Grateful if anyone can help explain. Thanks!

[Adam Tyson]

The problem with answer B is that the criticisms are NOT directed at the distributors of the films! They are still directed at the films themselves. The issue is that the films the critics are seeing are not exactly the films that the directors made, due to the mutilations done in the distribution process. But the critics aren't blaming the distributor. The author of this passage is doing that, but the critics are not.