Skip to main contentSkip to solution

In the summer of 2022, subscribers to the US streaming service HBO MAX were alarmed to discover that dozens of the platform's offerings from the Covid-themed heist thriller Locked Down to the recent remake of The Witches – had been quietly removed from the service. The news seemed like vindication to those who had long warned that streaming was more about controlling access to the cultural commons than expanding it, as did reports (since denied by the show's creators) that Netflix had begun editing old episodes of Stranger Things to retroactively improve their visual effects.

What's less clear is whether the commonly prescribed cure for these cultural ills – a return to the material pleasures of physical media – is the right one. While the makers of Blu-ray discs claim they have a shelf life of 100 years, such statistics remain largely theoretical until they come to pass, and are dependent on storage conditions, not to mention the continued availability of playback equipment. The humble DVD has already proved far less resilient, with many early releases already beginning to deteriorate in quality. Digital movie purchases provide even less security. Any film "bought" on iTunes could disappear if you move to another territory with a different rights agreement and try to redownload it. It's a bold new frontier in the commodification of art: the birth of the product recall. After a man took to Twitter to bemoan losing access to Cars 2 after moving from Canada to Australia, Apple clarified that users who downloaded films to their devices would retain permanent access to those downloads, even if they relocated to a hemisphere where the content was subject to a different set of rights agreements. Thanks to the company's ironclad digital rights management technology, however, such files cannot be moved or backed up, locking you into watching with your Apple account.

Anyone who does manage to acquire Digital Rights Management free (DRM-free) copies of their favourite films must nonetheless grapple with ever-changing file format standards, not to mention data decay – the gradual process by which electronic information slowly but surely corrupts. Only the regular migration of files from hard drive to hard drive can delay the inevitable, in a Sisyphean battle against the ravages of digital time.

In a sense, none of this is new. Charlie Chaplin burned the negative of his 1926 film A Woman of the Sea as a tax write-off. Many more films have been lost through accident, negligence or plain indifference. During a heat wave in July 1937, a Fox film vault in New Jersey burned down, destroying a majority of the silent films produced by the studio.

Back then, at least, cinema was defined by its ephemerality: the sense that a film was as good as gone once it left your local cinema. Today, with film studios keen to stress the breadth of their back catalogues (or to put in Hollywood terms, the value of their IPs), audiences may start to wonder why those same studios seem happy to set the vault alight themselves if it'll help next quarter's numbers.

Which one of the following statements, if true, would best invalidate the main argument of the passage?

Solution

βœ… Correct Option: 4

To solve this, we need to first identify the main argument of the passage, then find which option would completely tear it down.

The passage's core argument: Digital media gives users less control and permanence than they think -> streaming services control access rather than expand it -> content gets removed -> you don't really "own" digital purchases -> DRM locks you into platforms.

From passage: "The news seemed like vindication to those who had long warned that streaming was more about controlling access to the cultural commons than expanding it"

The passage argues digital media has major problems: content removal -> geo-blocking -> platform dependence -> data decay -> format changes. All of these show users lack real control over their digital content.


Now we need to find which option would completely destroy this argument, not just address one small part.

Students often get confused between options that fix one problem vs options that fix the core issue.

🟠 Option 1 -> partial-truth -> fixes data decay/migration but ignores content removal, DRM, platform control. The passage says digital media has multiple problems - fixing just one doesn't invalidate the whole argument.

🟠 Option 2 -> partial-truth -> VPNs help with geo-blocking when you move countries, but streaming services can still remove shows, you're still locked into platforms with DRM. Again, fixes one issue but leaves the main argument intact.

πŸ”΄ Option 3 -> opposite-direction -> this actually supports the passage! If Blu-rays last 100 years, that makes physical media look even better compared to problematic digital media. This strengthens the passage's argument instead of invalidating it.

🟒 Option 4 -> directly attacks core argument -> if studios gave "perpetual, platform-independent access," this would eliminate content removal, geo-blocking, platform dependence, and DRM issues all at once. This would mean digital media actually does expand access rather than control it, completely invalidating the passage's main point.

The key insight: Options 1-2 only fix symptoms, but Option 4 fixes the disease itself.

Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Left arrow: Previous question
  • Right arrow: Next question
  • S key: Jump to solution
  • Q key: Jump to question