Minh: Support This film director’s newest works are very predictable. ██████ █████████ ███ ███ ████████ ███ ████ ███████████ ████████ ████ ████ ██ ██████ █ ██████████ ██ ███ ███████ █████
████████ ███ ███████ ███ ██████ █████████ ████████ ███ ████████ ██ █ ████ ██ ███████████ ██ █████ ██ ████ ████████ ██ ███ ████ ██ ██████████ ███████ ██████ ███ █████ ████ ███ ████ ████ █████████ ███ █████ █████ ███ ████ █████████
Minh believes that a certain director is “pillaging” his past work, but not getting much value from doing so. In support, Minh points out that the director’s recent films are very predictable, and in fact are nothing more than repetitions of his past films.
Natalie argues that the director’s recent work is actually original, despite their similarity to past films. How so? Because the director is using the same elements to create new works (rather than just repeating past works).
We need to find a point of agreement about the director’s recent films. Minh and Natalie agree that the recent films are very similar to the director’s previous films.
The dialogue most strongly supports ███ █████ ████ ████ ███ ███████ █████ ██ ███ █████ ██ █████ ███ ██ ███ █████████ ██████████ █████ ███ ██████████ ██████ ██████
They share many ████████ ████ ███ ███████ ██████
They constitute evidence ████ ██ ██ █████████ ███ ███ ████████
They are nothing ████ ████ ███████████ ██ ███ ██████████ ███████ ██████
They are less ████████ ████ ███ ███████ ██████
They provide evidence ██ ███ ██████████ ███████████