Passage Summary: Since movies about history don't show their work or provide proof for their claims, people who don't already know the history shouldn't take the movies at face value.

Conclusion: People who are not already informed about history should not view dramatic historical films as accurate accounts.

Reasoning: These films are dramatic presentations rather than documentaries, and they lack the ability to provide evidence for the accuracy of their portrayals.

Analysis: The argument moves from a factual premise—that these films cannot present evidence—to a normative conclusion about what viewers 'should' do. This is a classic 'is-ought' gap. To justify this reasoning, we need a principle that bridges the two by stating that if a medium cannot provide evidence for its claims, it shouldn't be trusted as accurate by those who can't verify it. Look for a rule that links the absence of evidence-sharing to a loss of credibility for the uninformed.