Reading comp PrepTest 155 · Section 3 · Question 1

Passage Summary Topic:
Humanities

Paragraph 1

• Paragraph note
  • Question posed (how to exhibit art) and common approach described ("collecting the similar" in art and film exhibitions)
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Common approach:
    • Show works with common elements (second through last sentences)
  • Examples of common approaches:
    • Works from the same artist, like Rembrandt (second and third sentences)
    • Works of the same theme or historical period, like Modernism (fourth sentence)
    • Film retrospectives that include several films from the same direct, star, or studio (seventh sentence)
  • Author's attitude: "Another reasonable method might be" (fourth sentence)

Paragraph 2

• Paragraph note
  • Author's criticism of the common approach (retrospectives of early nonfiction films are inappropriate because they were supporting films)
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Author's view:
    • Showing similar early films — especially nonfiction films — is extremely boring because they were usually supporting films, and the retrospective makes them the main attraction (first through third sentences)
  • Comparisons, according to the author:
    • Early film audiences saw a mix of different types of films, but retrospectives tend to show the same type of film (first and fourth sentences)
    • This viewing experience is useful for academics but is very boring for audiences (second sentencing)
• Author's attitude: "often inappropriate" (first sentence); "especially nonfiction" (first sentence); "which would never have been the practice at the time" (first sentence); "while useful for historians and academics, is often profoundly dull for the viewer" (second sentence); "have always been supporting films" (third sentence)

Paragraph 3

• Paragraph note
  • Author's criticism of the common approach (irony that attention is spent on making the film "authentic" but not the presentation)
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Comparison, according to the author:
    • Restorations of early films are touted as being authentic, while the exhibitions of such films is inauthentic
  • Author's attitude: "often behave as if the production of the films were the only side of the coin" (first sentence); "authenticity is sometimes allowed to go out the window'" (fourth sentence); "inauthentic setting, utterly shorn of the program that once gave these films life and context" (fifth sentence); "magic of programming" (sixth sentence); "more like inherited it" (sixth sentence); "ill behooves us alleged early film lovers" (last sentence

Main Point:
While retrospectives of early nonfiction films have become increasingly common, presenting similar films is dull and inauthentic.

Key Lines?
Paragraph 1, Sentence 5 (P1, S5) - Common approach described
P2, S1 - Author's central criticism

Meta-Structure?
Criticizing a Viewpoint: This passage utilizes a Criticizing a Viewpoint Meta-Structure*. After describing one approach to exhibiting art and films (showing similar works/films), the author uses the second and third paragraphs to criticize this approach in the context of early nonfiction film retrospectives. The author contends that showing similar early films is dull and inauthentic, since that's not how such films would have been screened at the time of their release.

In a Criticizing a Viewpoint passage, the author's central criticism is the main point. So, we've summarized the main point as, "While retrospectives of early nonfiction films have become increasingly common, presenting similar films is dull and inauthentic."

*Some may argue that this passage has a Correcting the Record, Rebutting Critics, or Old Approach/New Approach Meta-Structure — understandably so, since there's considerable overlap between these Meta-Structures and the Criticizing a Viewpoint Meta-Structure. If you went with either of these, that's OK! You'd wind up with the same main point and big-picture understanding of the passage described above. However, some may see the question presented in the first paragraph ("which works [of art] should be exhibited together?") and conclude that this is a Question/Answer passage. The author doesn't spend much time answering that question, though. The author spends most of the passage criticizing one specific answer to that question ("collecting the similar') in one specific context of exhibitions (retrospectives of early films). So, viewing this as a Question/Answer passage may give us misimpressions about the passage.

Comparison: The most prominent minor Meta-Structure in this passage is the comparison. The author makes three comparisons, outlined in the Passage Summary above. We recommend highlighting or underlining these, as at least one is likely to factor into answering a question. 

Last Thoughts?
There is a *lot* of the author's attitude in this passage, as you can see in the Passage Summary above. We should have highlighted quite a bit of the passage. While the author offers many critiques in this passage, it's easy to assume that the author's criticism is extreme. But, as always, we need to pay close attention to the author's word choice. In this case, viewing the author's criticism as extreme is supported — the author says screening similar early nonfiction films is "profoundly dull for the viewer" (P2, S2) and says such an "inauthentic" display robs the films' "life and context" (P3, S5). In other passages, however, an author with many opinions has somewhat tempered or nuanced views.