PT155 S3 P1 Q3 ExplanationScreening Nonfiction Films

Answer choices, explained

1. A

   Compatible9% picked this

   Works of art should be presented as authentically

   The author is fine with presenting works of art authentically. She is urging people who do screenings of early nonfiction films to be more authentic in terms of the presentational context (a night of mixed programming).

   9%
2. B

   Correct72% picked this

   Dissimilar works of art should never be

   Why this is right

   This principle is easy for any average person to reject. It's so harsh. We should never, ever display any two pieces of dissimilar work together? Rejecting this principle means that you believe, "there could be at least one case in which it would be fine to display dissimilar works of art together". Beyond how extreme this answer is, the author would also reject it because she's urging those who screen early nonfiction films to better replicate the way early nonfiction films were incorporated into a broader night of mixed programming. Since she thinks the appropriate way to screen early nonfiction would be to replicate a mix of drama, comedy, travelogue, and news films, she is clearly tolerant of displaying dissimilar works together.

   Skill tested: Principle · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.

   72%
3. C

   Compatible7% picked this

   Contemporary exhibitions of works of art should be informed by knowledge of how past exhibitions

   Rejecting this principle means the author would be saying "modern exhibitions should not be informed by X". We can't support that the author thinks, "a contemporary exhibition should not take into account any awareness of how past exhibitions collected works together". If by "previous exhibitions" we can be referring to the "original exhibitions" of these films, then we know the author wholeheartedly agrees with this principle. In other words, our author definitely wants contemporary screenings of early nonfiction to be informed by an awareness of how the those nonfiction films were originally exhibited, as part of a night of mixed programming. If this answer is only referring to past screenings, not the original exhibition, then we would just say this passage makes no comment, since it never discusses previous screenings.

   7%
4. D

   Compatible6% picked this

   Art exhibitions should never be designed without regard to how each work contributes

   In this passage, the author is urging people who do screenings of early nonfiction films to give more regard to the fact that these films were part of a deliberately curated night of mixed programming. In the final paragraph, the author complains that when screenings just stack early nonfiction back to back: films are presented in an inauthentic setting, utterly shorn of the program that once gave these films life and context, a setting that allowed particularly films to shine, but also to balance and react against other kinds of film. Here, the author is expressing an appreciation for how each part contributes to the whole. So her sentiment aligns with this principle. (This principle is certainly said very strongly, so the author might disagree with never, but we don't have any support in the passage for the author arguing that an exhibit sometimes shouldn't think about how the parts connect to the whole.)

   6%
5. E

   Compatible7% picked this

   Art exhibitions should sometimes collect works that are all by the

   Rejecting this weakly worded principle means believing that, "Art exhibitions should never collect works that all by the same artist". Our author is never saying that we should never collect works by the same artist. She is only saying that in the case of early nonfiction films, it's not a good idea to do screenings consisting of nothing but early nonfiction (whether they're all from the same artist or from different artists).

   7%