Sheila: It has been argued that using computer technology to add color to a movie originally filmed in black and white damages the integrity of the original film. ███ ██ ███ ██████ ████ ██ ██████ ███ ████ █ █████ ██ █ █████ ██ █ █████ █████ ███████ █████ ██ █████ █████ ███ █████ ██ ███ ████ ██ ██████ ███ ████ ██████████ ██ ███ ███████ ████ ██ █ ███ ████ ████ ██████ ██ ███ ████ █████████ ██ ██ ██ ███ ███████ ██ ███ █████████ ██████████ ███ █████████ ████ ██ █ ███ ████ ████████ ████ ███ ████████ ███ ██████ ██ ██████ ██ ███ ███ ██████ ██ ████ ███ ██████ ███ █████████ ██ ███ ████████ ███████████████ █████
Sheila starts by introducing a claim made by other people: that adding color to a movie originally filmed in black and white damages the integrity of the original film. But Sheila points out that when it comes to making film adaptations of written works, no one argues that the value of the original work is damaged by the adaptation. The film adaptation, Sheila claims, is a stand-alone work that can be judged separately from the written original. By analogy, Sheila argues, the colorized version of a black-and-white film is a new, stand-alone work of art. Therefore, it does not affect the integrity of the original film.
Sheila rejects an argument made by other people — specifically, that making a colorized version of a black and white film damages the integrity of the original. She does this by appealing to an analogous situation: making a film adaptation of a written work. She suggests that, by the other people's logic, making a film adaptation of a written work should be considered a threat to the value of the original work. But no one makes that argument, because the film adaptation is clearly a new and separate work of art from the original.
Thus, Sheila uses this analogy to suggest that the other people's reasoning is flawed, because it overlooks this distinction between a new work of art and the original. Sheila believes this distinction applies to the colorized version of a film versus the black and white original film, and so concludes that the colorized version is not a threat to the integrity of the original.
Sheila's argument uses which one ██ ███ █████████ ██████████ ██ ██████████████
It appeals to ██ ███████ ███████ ███████ ██████
This is correct. Sheila appeals to the case of making film adaptations of written works, which she believes is analogous to making colorized versions of black and white films.
It offers a ██████████████ ██ █ ███████ ██████████
Sheila's example of making film adaptations of written works isn't a counterexample to anything. If anything, it is used to suggest a more general principle — new works of art should be judged separately from the originals — which Sarah then argues applies to the original case of colorized versus black-and-white films. So if this idea is taken as a principle, there are no counterexamples to it in this argument — though notice that the idea is actually framed less as a general principle as simply an important point of similarity between two analogous cases. We don't know if Sheila necessarily believes this idea is a principle that applies in all cases beyond these two.
It appeals to ███████ ███████ ██ ███ ██████ ██ ██████
Though Sheila does say "no one" argues that making a film adaptation of a written work threatens the value of the original, she agrees with that argument not because of the number of people who believe it, but because of the logic behind it: the film adaptation, as a new work of art, should be judged separately from the original. And Sheila doesn't say anything at all about popular opinion regarding colorized versus black-and-white films.
It distinguishes facts ████ █████ ██████████
Sheila does not say anything about facts versus value judgments.
It draws an █████████ ████ █ ███████ █████████ ███ █ ███ ██ ██████
The structure this answer choice describes would look more like Sheila offering a general rule to begin with, and then examining the details of the process of colorizing black and white films to see if the rule applied to that case. She doesn't do this. Her argument is based on appealing to an analogous case.
Answer five questions and we'll estimate your score.
It takes about five minutes.
Take the free diagnostic