Q6

[JackelineZ38]

Can someone clarify why E is incorrect and C is correct?

[Laura Damone]

Sure!

P2 seems to express a ranking of "mutilations." First, subtitles. These can be incompetent or used for censorship. Next, dubbing, "a significantly more profound intervention" which "can be even more damaging." Finally, reediting to make the film "more understandable." While it isn't explicitly stated that this has a bigger impact than the first two interventions, I think it's safe to infer that it does.

Thus, because the author wants to "mutilate" the film as little as possible, we can infer that they would rather faithfully subtitle than cautiously restructure.

[JenniferK632]

This seems like a dumb question, because in the real world, it's obvious.

But in LSAT world, why not no subtitles (D)? The author just railed on all sorts of language distortions in para 2, and never indicates that in can be done well. Then again, author never indicates that subtitles are worse than no subtitles. I couldn't find textual support for either (C) or (D).

Sure!

P2 seems to express a ranking of "mutilations." First, subtitles. These can be incompetent or used for censorship. Next, dubbing, "a significantly more profound intervention" which "can be even more damaging." Finally, reediting to make the film "more understandable." While it isn't explicitly stated that this has a bigger impact than the first two interventions, I think it's safe to infer that it does.

Thus, because the author wants to "mutilate" the film as little as possible, we can infer that they would rather faithfully subtitle than cautiously restructure.

[Laura Damone]

I don't think there's great support for C, but it's the one that aligns most with the "hierarchy of mutilations" that the author puts forth. I'd kill D because it doesn't provide a way for the Russian-speaking audience to understand the film. It's a "real world" flaw with the answer, but it's the best we've got!

[RamseyM415]

Sure!

P2 seems to express a ranking of "mutilations." First, subtitles. These can be incompetent or used for censorship. Next, dubbing, "a significantly more profound intervention" which "can be even more damaging." Finally, reediting to make the film "more understandable." While it isn't explicitly stated that this has a bigger impact than the first two interventions, I think it's safe to infer that it does.

Thus, because the author wants to "mutilate" the film as little as possible, we can infer that they would rather faithfully subtitle than cautiously restructure.

Am I wrong to read the stuff about editing as an elaboration on the concept of dubbing, rather than as a third type of intervention? That's the way it reads to me.