Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
Every photograph, because it involves the light rays that [#permalink]
05 Sep 2004, 05:59
0% (00:00) correct
0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions
HideShow timer Statictics
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, if true, would cast doubt on the experimentersâ€™ conclusion?
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 the truth about it.
To weaken the conclusion: "Therefore, nothing can ever be definitively proved with a photograph"
choice "D" clearly says the case in which this "ever" of conclusion can be wrong that is "It is possible to use a photograph as corroborative evidence if there is additional evidence establishing the truth about the scene photographed"
My choice is answer B.
Conclusion: Nothing can be proved definitely with the photograph.
Supports: It cannot express the whole truth because it can always be made to show things differently than it does
A. Supports the conclusion
B. Weakens the conslusion as if the whole truth cannot be known, then the above stated premise is not false.
D. Supports, in essence it says that photograph cannot be the only proof, it can only suppliment other evidences
E. Actually find this a little irrelevant, as the premises and conclusion is about photographs and what is about to be photograph.
E. If something is being photographed, then it is possible to prove
definitively the truth about it.
Here, it goes in the opposite stream of the conclusion. It says
1) if somehitng is being photographed
2) then is possible to prove definitively the truth about whatever is being pictured
While the conclusion is
1) if something is being photographed
2) cannot be used to prove anything definitively
had the question asked for inference, "A" would have been right. But to weaken the argument we need to consider "E" not "A". "A" reiterates what is already known about the argument. the conclusion says that nothing can be proved with a photograph, but if we show that there is some truth in what is being photographed, then conclusion will fall apart.
E should be it... anyway, what's the official explanation for "A"?