sat suite question viewer
Text 1
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?
Explanation
Choice A is the best answer because it provides a statement about the description of the first showing of Arrival of the Train in Text 1 that, based on the texts, the author of Text 2 would most likely agree with. Text 1 indicates that members of the audience, unaccustomed to the new medium of film and believing that they were looking at a real oncoming train, allegedly reacted to the film with alarm. Text 1 then goes on to treat this anecdote as a factual account of the film’s first showing, interpreting it as a moment that marked a "major cultural shift." In contrast, the author of Text 2 indicates that though the story of the film’s first showing has become "canonical," or widely accepted, there is no contemporary evidence to support the idea that the audience reacted as Text 1 describes. Text 2 goes on to explain that this factually questionable description likely persists because it functions as a "founding myth" that reinforces a widespread belief in the profoundly transformative nature of the invention of film. This indicates that the author of Text 2 would likely see the description in Text 1 as motivated primarily by cultural perceptions about film’s significance rather than by documented historical facts.
Choice B is incorrect because the author of Text 2 doesn’t suggest that film historians regard the view about film’s transformative nature as naïve. On the contrary, Text 2 states that the story of the first showing of Arrival of the Train has become "canonical, even among film historians," indicating that historians broadly accept this narrative as a compelling illustration of film’s impact, not that they regard either the narrative or the views it conveys about the transformative nature of film as naïve. Text 2 refers to a "(naïve) ‘before’" in cultural history, but this is describing how the myth itself characterizes pre-film audiences, not how historians regard views about the transformative nature of film. Choice C is incorrect. While the author of Text 2 does indicate that the story of the audience’s reaction to Arrival of the Train described in Text 1 is a myth that lacks evidence, the text doesn’t suggest that the story reflects the fact that film historians believe themselves to be more sophisticated than modern audiences are. Rather, Text 2 suggests that the story persists because of a collective cultural belief, which historians share, in the profound impact of the invention of film. Moreover, the "naïve" versus "sophisticated" distinction mentioned in Text 2 refers to how the myth characterizes audiences before and after the invention of film; it doesn’t characterize modern audiences versus film historians. Choice D is incorrect. Although the author of Text 2 would agree that the description of the first showing of Arrival of the Train in Text 1 reflects a misconception, the author wouldn’t agree that widespread belief in the misconception can be attributed to the fact that it accurately captures early audiences’ actual sense of alarm. In fact, the misconception identified by the author of Text 2 concerns the accuracy of the audience’s alleged reaction; the author questions whether early audiences were alarmed at all, stating there is "no contemporary evidence" that they reacted in this way. According to Text 2, the description is widely believed not because it accurately captures historical reactions but because it serves as a "founding myth" that supports a belief in film’s transformative cultural impact.