PrepTest 155
[lcid:3718] Prep Test 155 LSAT — Reading Comp — S3
Reading comp
Passage
The following passage is adapted from a 2001 article by a film historian. In exhibiting works of art—whether in a
Remaining source text redacted.
Passage walkthrough
Passage Summary Topic:
Humanities
Paragraph 1
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.
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)
- Common approach:
- 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 view:
- 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 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
- Comparison, according to the author:
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.
Question prompt
The author would be
Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right
Credited answer: B
The notes below walk through why it fits the stem and how to eliminate the rest.
Question Type
Humanities
Answer choices
-
AAn exhibition of works Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice A is not credited
Is this related to the author's main point or what you recall about the author's stated opinions?
Not quite, since this is about art exhibitions generally and not early nonfiction film retrospectives specifically. This answer is trying to get you to select it because the author argues that displaying several nonfiction works in a row is "dull." However, those works weren't necessarily by the same artist (they could have been by different directors). Moreover, the author suggests that exhibiting works from the same artist is "reasonable" in other mediums, like painting (P1, S1-3). So, this answer choice is unsupported. -
BWhen several works of Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice B matches the stem
Question Type:
Tone/Author Agree
Strategy Overview:
Review the main point, and use notes or highlighted/underlined text in the passage to recall the author's attitude, and find the answer that best reflects your understanding of the main point/author's attitude
Answer Anticipation:
This question asks us about the author's view, but doesn't provide any insight into the topic of the correct answer or where the supporting information might show up in the passage. This means the correct answer is likely to relate back to the author's main point. As such, we'll need to rely on our big-picture understanding of the passage to answer this question. We should start by reminding ourselves of the main point (either by reviewing what we said after reading the passage or by rereading our answer to the main point question). We can also review any notes about the author's attitude or any text we highlighted because it expressed the author's opinion. After doing that, we can head to the answer choices, tabling those that don't line up with the main point. For those answer choices that conform to the author's main point, we'll use our notes and the passage to see if it's correct.
Answer Choice Explanation:
Is this related to the author's main point or what you recall about the author's stated opinions?
Yes — the author's main point is that watching several of the same types of early films is dull. So, the author must believe that the interplay among multiple works can affect how the audience displays the work. We can select this one without even reviewing the passage.
If we did review the passage, we'd also see that the author also says that a screening's "program," or how multiple films are presented together, can give films "life" and allow them to "shine" by balancing and reacting to other films (P3, S5). As such, this answer is one that the author would agree with. It's also not too strong since it says that the response "can" be affected by the interplay between works — that requires only a single example!
Key Takeaway:
The first six questions in this passage were all global in nature and required us to have a strong understanding of the author's main point. -
CFilm archives and retrospective Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice C is not credited
Is this related to the author's main point or what you recall about the author's stated opinions?
Nope. We can cross off (C) without referencing the passage.
If we did review the passage, we'd see that the author states that the presenters from the early period of cinema learned some tricks from vaudeville, not that modern archivists and those behind retrospectives use those practices. And, in fact, the author believes that they should be used today. If anything, this is something the author would disagree with. -
DMost early cinemagoers did Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice D is not credited
Is this related to the author's main point or what you recall about the author's stated opinions?
No — early film audiences' genre recognition did not factor into our main point or notes. We can eliminate (D) without reviewing the passage.
If we re-read the passage, we'd see that this passage discusses what early cinemagoers were exposed to, not what they thought about genres. -
EA work of art Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice E is not credited
Is this related to the author's main point or what you recall about the author's stated opinions?
Not exactly. The author's main point was more about audiences' reaction to film retrospectives — not historians' or academics' reactions. The author argues that early nonfiction films aren't ideally shown to audiences at exhibitions out of context. That doesn't necessarily mean that academics/historians will misunderstand the works out of context. And this answer is about all works of art, and the argument over context is only applied to certain films.
Moreover, there's an issue in how strongly worded this answer choice is. Note the difference between this answer and (B), in that (B) discusses what "can" happen, whereas this answer is about what "will" happen.
What this tests
Discussion
-
A 1 reply
Started by danielfrew1
-
Ans Choice C 2 replies
Started by ankita96
-
Answer choice E 3 replies
Started by shafieiava