It is currently 17 Oct 2017, 23:31

### GMAT Club Daily Prep

#### Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# Every photograph, because it involves the light rays that

Author Message
Senior Manager
Joined: 08 Jan 2009
Posts: 326

Kudos [?]: 176 [0], given: 5

Every photograph, because it involves the light rays that [#permalink]

### Show Tags

25 Aug 2009, 20:22
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 100% (00:00) wrong based on 7 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

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

[Reveal] Spoiler:
A

Kudos [?]: 176 [0], given: 5

Senior Manager
Joined: 29 Jul 2009
Posts: 314

Kudos [?]: 392 [1], given: 9

### Show Tags

26 Aug 2009, 08:44
1
KUDOS
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

Kudos [?]: 392 [1], given: 9

Senior Manager
Joined: 18 Aug 2009
Posts: 417

Kudos [?]: 144 [0], given: 16

Schools: UT at Austin, Indiana State University, UC at Berkeley
WE 1: 5.5
WE 2: 5.5
WE 3: 6.0

### Show Tags

26 Aug 2009, 04:21
Such a complicated critical reasoning, Pls need explanation
_________________

Never give up,,,

Kudos [?]: 144 [0], given: 16

Manager
Joined: 12 Aug 2008
Posts: 185

Kudos [?]: 16 [0], given: 1

Location: Buffalo, NY
Schools: Simon '11

### Show Tags

26 Aug 2009, 06:04
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.

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.

Kudos [?]: 16 [0], given: 1

Manager
Affiliations: CFA Level 2 Candidate
Joined: 29 Jun 2009
Posts: 220

Kudos [?]: 283 [0], given: 2

Schools: RD 2: Darden Class of 2012

### Show Tags

26 Aug 2009, 08:28
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.

Kudos [?]: 283 [0], given: 2

Re: cr3   [#permalink] 26 Aug 2009, 08:28
Display posts from previous: Sort by