Q2

[tzyc]

How do we know the author agrees with oponent's opinion about live performance?
I know the author gives live performance as an example of how technology can damage the artistic enterprise, but does just this fact prove the author's agreement?

Thank you.

[ohthatpatrick]

We know from lines 27-30 that the opponents think that live performances are important because "some even worry that technology will eliminate live performance altogether".

We know the author is answering this point of view starting with they "But" in line 30.

The author essentially said, "you guys don't have to worry that technology will eliminate live performance. What, you think we're not committed enough to the artistic enterprise to preserve live performance? Of course we're that committed. Of course we're going to preserve the live performance. You're being overly cynical."

Lines 33-34 is the proof sentence for where the author acknowledges that preserving live performances represents "commitment to the artistic enterprise".

I'm a little concerned with something you said:
"I know the author gives live performance as an example of how technology can damage the artistic enterprise"

The "others" from line 20 are saying that technology might subvert the artistic enterprise, in part by eliminating the live performance altogether.

The author says in lines 30-35 that the "others" are overly cynical to think that way. The author believes that the live performance is here to stay, with or without the new technology.

Hope this helps.

[0007]

Does anyone mind describing their approach to this question?

After reading it, I thought to look to paragraph 2, but I only read up to what the opponents claimed were counterproductive to artistic enterprise. I looked specifically at this section because I thought I had missed some brief phrase where the author conceded something to the opposing side. I didn't think to look further at the author's response in the latter half of the paragraph, since:

1. Given what I had remembered, the author was essentially arguing that the objections raised were unwarranted
   
2. I didn't want to waste too much time re-reading the entirety of paragraph two.

At the same time, I should have realized that I was more likely to see the author's POV, and thus where the author might agree with the opponents in the latter half of paragraph 2.

This was sort of a poor judgement call on my end, but does anyone mind sharing their approach to the question, and how to more efficiently hone in on the relevant evidence?