Conclusion An effective acting performance does not call the audience's attention to the fact that it is a performance. ████ █████ ████ ██ ████ █████████ ███ ███ ████████ ██ █████████ ████ ███ █████████ ███ █████ ██ ████████ ███ █████████ ████████ ████████████ ██ ███ ███████ ████ ███ ██████████ ████████████ ██ █ █████
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.
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
The argument's conclusion follows logically ████ ███ ████████ ██ █████ ███ ██ ███ █████████ ██ ████████
An audience will ███ ██████████ ██████████ █ ████ ██████ ███ ██ ███ ██████ ████████████ ██ ███ ████ ███ ██████████
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.
As long as ██ ██████ ███████████ ████ ███ ████ ███ ██████████ █████████ ██ ███ ████ ████ ██ ██ █ ████████████ ██ ████ ███ ███████ ████ ███ ██████████ ████████████ ██ █ █████
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.”
If a performance ██ ██ █████ ██ █ ████ ████████ ███ ██████████ ████████████ ██ ███ █████ ████ ███ ████ ██ █ █████ ██ ██████ ██ █ ███████
Making a play better has nothing to do with connecting the concepts in the premises.
An effective dramatic ███████████ ██ █ ████ ████ ███████ ███ ██████████ ████████████ ██ ███ █████
(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.
A dramatic performance ████ █████ ██ ████ █████████ ███ ███ ████████ ██ █████████ ████ ███ ███████ █████████ ████████ ████ ███ ██████████ ████████████ ██ ███ █████
(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.