Film preservation requires transferring

Answer choices

1. A

   Too Strong: no new technique ever12% picked this

   No new technology for transferring old movies from nitrate film to acetate film will

   The author does have to assume that "no new technology that could transfer all currently deteriorating nitrate films will be developed in time to save Hollywood's early films", but she doesn't have to assume a new technology will never be developed.

   12%
2. B

   Out of Scope: expense2% picked this

   Transferring films from nitrate to acetate is not the least expensive way

   This argument is about whether we're able to do it in time. It has already been established that transferring from nitrate to acetate is required for film preservation. If this is the only way we can preserve films, then it is the most and the least expensive way of doing so. Also, it's possible for something to be the least expensive option, but still be "too-expensive", so even if the author were saying that our main constraint is cost, he still could make his argument even if he's discussing the least costly option.

   2%
3. C

   Too Strong: not many18% picked this

   Not many films from the earliest years of Hollywood have already been

   The author doesn't need to assume that barely any (or no) films from early Hollywood have already been transferred. He just needs to assume that there are plenty that still haven't been transferred. If we negate this, it sounds like an objection: "Hey, author, many films from the earliest years of Hollywood have already been transferred!" "Many" is a weak, imprecise quantity that could mean like 10 of them have been transferred. So while this would weaken his argument somewhat, it would still be pretty easy for him to say, "yes, many have been transferred, but the vast majority haven't."

   18%
4. D

   Correct68% picked this

   Some films from the earliest years of Hollywood currently exist solely in

   Why this is right

   When you contradict "some" (at least one), you get "none" (zero). If we negate this, it says "none of the films from the early years exist solely in their original nitrate format." Cleaning up that double negative would mean "all of the films from the early years exist in some other format beyond their original nitrate one." That is a huge objection. It's possible these early films have already been transferred to acetate, or maybe they've just been transferred to some other substance that "resets the clock" of when our last copy of them will disintegrate. In simpler terms, this answer is saying, "The author is assuming that there's at least one film from the early years of Hollywood that hasn't yet been copied / preserved." Yes, our author is definitely thinking that. This is similar to our predicted objection: "What if there aren't that many early films that need to be saved?" This is saying "The author is assuming that there's at least one early film that hasn't already been saved / needs to be saved".

   Skill tested: Necessary Assumption · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   68%
5. E

   Out of Scope: least popular1% picked this

   The least popular films from the earliest years of Hollywood are the ones most likely

   Nothing in this argument has anything to do with whether or not a film was popular. It's just about whether or not it's from early Hollywood.

   1%