Self-study
The following passage is adapted from a 2001 article by a film historian.
P1
██ ██████████ █████ ██ █████████████ ██ █ ████████ █ ███████ ██ ████████ ██████████ ███████ ████████ ███████ ███ █████ █████ ██████ ██ █████████ █████████ ███
Question ·
Which works of art should be shown together?
Answer 1 ·
Group art according to artist
E.g. Rembrandt paintings
Answer 2 ·
Group art according to theme/period
E.g., Modernist art
Similarity ·
Both answers use common characteristics to group art togther
Analogy ·
Film retrospectives are like art exhibits
Similar works of film are grouped by a common feature and screened together
narrowing topic ·
Early nonfiction film retrospectives
P2
███ █ █████ █████ ████ ███ ██████████ ██ ███████████ ███ ████████ ██ █████ █████████████ ███ █████████ █████ █████ ██████████ ███████████ ███████ ██ █████ ███████ ███████ █████ ██ ███ ████ ████ ███ █████ ███ █████ ██ ███ ████ ████████ █████ █████ █████ ████ ████ ███ ████████ ██ ███ ████ ███ █████ ████ █████ ███
Main point / author's criticism ·
Early films shouldn't be grouped by similarity
Premise: such films were never originally shown this way
Support criticism ·
Original format for screening films
Author gives more detail: instead of grouping similar films together, cinemas originally showed different films together in "mixed program"
P3
████ ████████ ███ █████████████ █████████ █████ ██████ ██ ██ ███ ██████████ ██ ███ █████ ████ ███ ████ ████ ██ ███ █████ ████ ████████ █████ ████ ███████ ██ ████ ███ ██████ ██ █████████ █████ ██ ████ ██████████ ████ ████ ██████████ █████████ █████ ████████████ ███ █████████ ████ █████ ███████ ██ █████████ █████████ ██ ███████████ ██████ ███
target of criticism ·
Film archives and retrospective festivals
Their priority is to showcase how films supposedly originally looked; author implies this shouldn't be sole priority
support criticism ·
Authenticity in how films were originally grouped is important
Screening films in mixed-program format adds context and improves viewing experience
clarify main point ·
Exhibition of early films shouldn't ignore the context in which they were originally viewed
Passage Style
Problem-analysis
Single position
1.
Which one of the following ████ ██████████ █████████ ███ ████ █████ ██ ███ ████████
Question Type
Main point
In this Problem-Analysis passage, the raises a problem (the right way to present film retrospectives) and critiques a solution to that problem (”collecting the similar”). The main point is the author’s critique: “collecting the similar” isn’t the right way to present film retrospectives.
a
Screenings that consist ████████ ██ █████ ██████████ █████ ███ ██████ █████████ ███████ ████ ██████ ███ ███████ ██ ███ ██████ ████████ ██████████
This describes the author’s critique. It’s the overarching reason the author disagrees with the approach of “collecting the similar.”
b
The practices that ███ ████ ██████ ██ ██████████ █████ ██ ██ ████████ ██████ ████ ████████ ███ ███ ████ ██████ ███ ██████████ █████████ ██████
The author doesn’t critique all practices that are best-suited to exhibiting paintings. In fact, we don’t know whether “collecting the similar” is even the best-suited choice for paintings. The author just says it’s what’s commonly done.
c
Early nonfiction films ████ ███ ████████ ███ ████████ ███████████ ████ ████ ████████
The author doesn’t suggest these films are underrated. He just says they shouldn’t be exhibited one after the other.
d
The artistic goals ██ █████ ██████████ █████ ███ █████████ ██ ████ █████ ████████ ████ ███ █████ ██ ████████████ ███████
Author doesn’t try to convince us of this difference, so it can’t be the main point.
e
For modern audiences ██ ████████ ██████████ █████ ██████████ ██████ ████ ██████████ ████ ███████ ████████████ ██ █████ █████ ████ ███ ██ █████████ ██ █████████
The author doesn’t argue this. He argues that while archivists focus on authentic restorations, they lose sight of the context in which those films were actually viewed.