|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 08 Jan 2009
Posts: 338
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
42
[0], given: 5
|
Every photograph, because it involves the light rays that [#permalink]
 25 Aug 2009, 20:22
Question Stats:
0% (00:00) correct
100% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions
Every photograph, because it involves the light rays that something emits hitting film, must in some obvious sense be true. But because it could always have been made to show things differently than it does, it cannot express the whole truth and, in that sense, is false. Therefore, nothing can ever be definitively proved with a photograph. Which one of the following is an assumption that would permit the conclusion above to be properly drawn? (A) Whatever is false in the sense that it cannot express the whole truth cannot furnish definitive proof. (B) The whole truth cannot be known. (C) It is not possible to determine the truthfulness of a photograph in any sense. (D) It is possible to use a photograph as corroborative evidence if there is additional evidence establishing the truth about the scene photographed. (E) If something is being photographed, then it is possible to prove definitively
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 18 Aug 2009
Posts: 441
Schools: UT at Austin, Indiana State University, UC at Berkeley
WE 1: 5.5
WE 2: 5.5
WE 3: 6.0
Followers: 4
Kudos [?]:
37
[0], given: 16
|
Such a complicated critical reasoning, Pls need explanation
_________________
Never give up,,,
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 12 Aug 2008
Posts: 185
Location: Buffalo, NY
Schools: Simon '11
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
14
[0], given: 1
|
I believe that the answer here is A.
Every photo is true in one sense, but because it is someone's specific point of view, it cannot objectively show the "whole truth". If it cannot show the "whole truth" than it cannot be used as definitive proof of anything.
Choice A provides the connection between not showing the whole truth and not being definitive proof of something.
Incorrect answers:
B) Doesn't matter in the context of this argument. In fact, may actually weaken the author's point.
C) The author explicitly says that every photograph is true in at least one way
D) Outside of scope, the author never says anything about outside evidence
E) This totally contradicts the authors point. He says that it is NOT possible to prove definitely.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Affiliations: CFA Level 2 Candidate
Joined: 29 Jun 2009
Posts: 228
Schools: RD 2: Darden Class of 2012
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
20
[0], given: 2
|
After my mind exploded from this question - I agreed with A
Conclusion
Therefore, nothing can ever be definitively proved with a photograph.
(B) The whole truth cannot be known. - Out of Scope, the whole truth could be known in other "non photograph ways"
(C) It is not possible to determine the truthfulness of a photograph in any sense. - Author states we can obtain the truth in the obvious sense.
(D) It is possible to use a photograph as corroborative evidence if there is additional evidence establishing the truth about the scene photographed. - Irrelevant to the argument
(E) If something is being photographed, then it is possible to prove definitively - contradicts conclusion
(A) Whatever is false in the sense that it cannot express the whole truth cannot furnish definitive proof.
Fact
Photographs are A (obvious truth) but not B (whole truth).
Initially definitive proof can be defined as being A or B. The assumption that definitive proof can't actually B completes the link and say Photographs can't be definitive proof.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 29 Jul 2009
Posts: 316
Followers: 4
Kudos [?]:
157
[0], given: 9
|
This question is kind of difficult a got it wrong the first time I saw it. I think the best approach is to diagram the question
Every photograph, because it involves the light rays that something emits hitting film, must in some obvious sense be true.
Every photograph ---> must in some obvious sense be true.
Notice that an assumption here is that
something involves the light rays that something emits hitting film ---> must be in some obvious sense be true
But because it could always have been made to show things differently than it does, it cannot express the whole truth and, in that sense, is false.
(2) photograph ---> cannot express the whole truth and, in that sense, is false
nothing can ever be definitively proved with a photograph.
(3) photograph ---> cannot definitely proved anything
If you want to join the premise (2) and the conclusion (3) you need to assume that
X cannot express the whole truth and, in that sense, is false ---> X cannot definitely proved anything
(A) is a rephrase of this assumption
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Similar topics |
Author |
Replies |
Last post |
|
Similar
Topics:
|
 |
|
|
Every photograph, because it involves the light rays that
|
asandeep |
4 |
15 Dec 2003, 12:46 |
|
|
|
|
Every photograph, because it involves the light rays that
|
aspire |
3 |
30 Mar 2004, 10:09 |
 |
|
|
Every photograph, because it involves the light rays that
|
chunjuwu |
12 |
05 Sep 2004, 05:59 |
|
|
|
|
Every photograph, because it involves the light rays that
|
WinWinMBA |
3 |
09 May 2005, 16:46 |
|
|
|
|
Every photograph, because it involves the light rays that
|
gurpreet07 |
4 |
18 Nov 2009, 10:39 |
|
|
|
|
|
Moderators:
metallicafan, rajeevrks27, souvik101990, PTK, MacFauz, noboru, kissthegmat, carcass, willigetmylifeback, mikemcgarry, doe007, Vercules, Legendaddy, tuanquang269, RaviChandra, Marcab, Narenn
|
close
