This page shows a recording of a live class. We're working hard to create our standard, concise explanation videos for the questions in this PrepTest. Thank you for your patience!
This page shows a recording of a live class. We're working hard to create our standard, concise explanation videos for the questions in this PrepTest. Thank you for your patience!
This page shows a recording of a live class. We're working hard to create our standard, concise explanation videos for the questions in this PrepTest. Thank you for your patience!
This page shows a recording of a live class. We're working hard to create our standard, concise explanation videos for the questions in this PrepTest. Thank you for your patience!
This page shows a recording of a live class. We're working hard to create our standard, concise explanation videos for the questions in this PrepTest. Thank you for your patience!
Summary
The author concludes that an effective acting performance does NOT call attention to the fact that it’s a performance.
Why?
Because if it did call attention to the fact that it’s a performance, that makes it more difficult for the audience to empathize with the actor’s character.
And, effective acting performances do NOT detract from the audience’s appreciation of a play.
Why?
Because if it did call attention to the fact that it’s a performance, that makes it more difficult for the audience to empathize with the actor’s character.
And, effective acting performances do NOT detract from the audience’s appreciation of a play.
Missing Connection
One premise gives us this relationship:
Effective acting performance → NOT detract from audience appreciation
The other premise, if we think about it in terms of its contrapositive, gives us this relationship:
NOT more difficult for audience to empathize → NOT call attention to fact of performance
We want to get from “effective acting performance” to “NOT call attention to fact of performance.” To do that, we want to establish a connection between the two premises:
NOT detract from audience appreciation → NOT more difficult for audience to empathize
Here’s the contrapositive version of the relationship we want to establish:
More difficult for audience to empathize → detract from audience appreciation
Effective acting performance → NOT detract from audience appreciation
The other premise, if we think about it in terms of its contrapositive, gives us this relationship:
NOT more difficult for audience to empathize → NOT call attention to fact of performance
We want to get from “effective acting performance” to “NOT call attention to fact of performance.” To do that, we want to establish a connection between the two premises:
NOT detract from audience appreciation → NOT more difficult for audience to empathize
Here’s the contrapositive version of the relationship we want to establish:
More difficult for audience to empathize → detract from audience appreciation
A
An audience will not completely appreciate a play unless all of the acting performances in the play are effective.
Establishing what’s required to “completely” appreciate a play doesn’t connect the premises together. In addition, (A) states that acting performances being effective is necessary for something else. But the conclusion doesn’t assert that an effective acting performance is necessary for something else.
B
As long as an acting performance does not call the audience’s attention to the fact that it is a performance, it will not detract from the audience’s appreciation of a play.
This reverses what could have been correct. (B) tells us that “not call attention” implies “not detract from appreciation.” But we want to show that “not detract from appreciation” implies “not call attention.”
C
If a performance by an actor in a play enhances the audience’s appreciation of the play, then the play as a whole is better as a result.
Making a play better has nothing to do with connecting the concepts in the premises.
D
An effective dramatic performance in a play will enhance the audience’s appreciation of the play.
(D) simply twists one premise, which says that effective acting performances do not detract from audience’s appreciation. With (D), we still don’t know whether making it more difficult for audiences to empathize with characters detracts from audience appreciation.
E
A dramatic performance that makes it more difficult for the audience to empathize with the actor’s character detracts from the audience’s appreciation of the play.
(E) allows us to connect the premises. With (E), we know that effective acting performance → not detract from appreciation → not make more difficult to empathize → not call attention.
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
A Researcher hypothesizes that the details of frightening experiences tend to be better remembered than those of nonfrightening experiences. This is because the Researcher observed that increased adrenaline secretion (which occurs during frightening experiences) enhances the clarity of one’s memory in those moments.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that adrenaline secretion is one of (if not the primary) factors explaining why frightening experiences are more clearly remembered. The author also assumes that nonfighting experiences typically do not involve increased adrenaline levels.
A
Some experiences are so intense that an individual’s normal tendency to retain the details of them is reversed.
While this suggests that some intense (frightening) experiences may not be remembered clearly, it does not cast doubt on any of the reasoning between adrenaline and frightening experiences. That is what you need to weaken.
B
An individual will tend to remember most clearly those details of a situation that are relevant to the satisfaction of desires.
This is focused on *what* is remembered most clearly, not *why* it is remembered. That is the focus of this argument.
C
Highly pleasurable experiences are, like frightening experiences, accompanied by increased levels of adrenaline.
This weakens the argument because it showcases that experiences other than frightening ones are also accompanied by increased levels of adrenaline. This directly weakens the relationship between the premise and conclusion.
D
Frightening experiences make up only a small fraction of experiences in general.
This does not touch the reasoning in the argument. The frequency of frightening experiences has nothing to do with *why* they are remembered more clearly.
E
If an individual perceives a dangerous situation as nonfrightening, then the experience of that situation will not be accompanied by increased adrenaline secretions.
This discusses exceptions to the described phenomenon but does not challenge the claim that frightening experiences, when accompanied by adrenaline, are better remembered.
This page shows a recording of a live class. We're working hard to create our standard, concise explanation videos for the questions in this PrepTest. Thank you for your patience!