Text 1 When the 50-second-long film Arrival of the Train—which depicts what its title says, a train pulling into a...
GMAT Craft and Structure : (Structure) Questions
When the 50-second-long film Arrival of the Train—which depicts what its title says, a train pulling into a station—was first shown publicly in 1896, spectators, naïve to the new medium of film and seeing a train appearing to come directly at them, leaped from their seats and fled the room. This moment marks a major cultural shift: a new way of representing and seeing the world had arrived with that train, and nothing would ever be the same.
Text 2
The fact that there is no contemporary evidence that the first audience of Arrival of the Train was alarmed has not stopped the story from becoming canonical, even among film historians. But that phenomenon itself is highly revealing. Our belief that the coming of film was transformative is so strong that we invented and keep retelling a founding myth that divides cultural history into a (naïve) 'before' and (sophisticated) 'after.'
Based on the texts, the author of Text 2 would most likely agree with which statement about the description of the first showing of Arrival of the Train in Text 1?
It is more motivated by a perception of the significance of the invention of film than by facts.
It expresses a view about the transformative nature of film that film historians tend to regard as naïve.
It is not based on evidence and reflects film historians' belief that they are more sophisticated than today's audiences.
It reflects a misconception that is widely believed because it captures early film audiences' sense that the new medium was alarming.
Step 1: Decode and Map the Passage
Create Passage Analysis Table
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
|---|---|
| Text 1: When the 50-second-long film Arrival of the Train was first shown publicly in 1896, spectators fled the room thinking the train was real. |
|
| This moment marks a major cultural shift: a new way of representing and seeing the world had arrived with that train. |
|
| Text 2: The fact that there is no contemporary evidence that the first audience was alarmed has not stopped the story from becoming canonical, even among film historians. |
|
| Our belief that the coming of film was transformative is so strong that we invented and keep retelling a founding myth. |
|
Provide Passage Architecture & Core Elements
Main Point: Text 1 presents the famous story of film's transformative arrival, while Text 2 argues this story persists not because it's true, but because we need founding myths to support our belief in film's cultural significance.
Step 2: Interpret the Question Precisely
What's being asked? What would the author of Text 2 most likely agree with regarding Text 1's description?
What type of answer do we need? An interpretation that aligns with Text 2's perspective on Text 1's account
Any limiting keywords? "most likely agree with"
Step 3: Prethink the Answer
- Based on our analysis, Text 2's author would view Text 1's description as fundamentally driven by our cultural beliefs rather than historical facts
- The right answer should reflect Text 2's core argument: that Text 1's account exists not because it's factually accurate, but because it serves our need to have a dramatic story that supports our belief about film's cultural significance
It is more motivated by a perception of the significance of the invention of film than by facts.
- This perfectly captures Text 2's argument that the story persists because of our strong belief in film's significance, not because of factual evidence
- Matches Text 2's explicit statement that there's no contemporary evidence
It expresses a view about the transformative nature of film that film historians tend to regard as naïve.
- Text 2 actually says even film historians believe the story
- This choice suggests historians think the view is naive, but Text 2 shows historians also perpetuate the myth
It is not based on evidence and reflects film historians' belief that they are more sophisticated than today's audiences.
- Text 2 doesn't compare film historians to today's audiences
- This comparison isn't in the passage
It reflects a misconception that is widely believed because it captures early film audiences' sense that the new medium was alarming.
- Text 2's whole point is that there's no evidence early audiences were actually alarmed
- This choice accepts that audiences found film alarming, which contradicts Text 2's argument