Bunuel wrote:
Journalists sometimes use historical photographs to illustrate articles about current events. But this recycling of old photographs overstates the similarities between past and present, and thereby denies the individual significance of those current events. Hence, the use of historical photographs in this manner by journalists distorts public understanding of the present by presenting current events as mere repetitions of historical incidents.
Which one of the following, if assumed, enables the conclusion of the argument to be properly inferred?
(A) Any practice by which journalists present current events as mere repetitions of historical incidents overstates the similarities between past and present.
(B) If the work of a journalist overstates the similarities between past and present, then it distorts public understanding of the present by presenting current events as mere repetitions of historical incidents.
(C) If a journalistic practice distorts public understanding of the present by overstating the similarities between past and present, then it denies the individual significance of any articles about current events.
(D) No article about a current event treats that event as merely a repetition of historical incidents unless it uses historical photographs to illustrate that article.
(E) If journalists believe current events to be mere repetitions of historical incidents, then public understanding of the present will be distorted.
EXPLANATION FROM Fox LSAT
You would have to be one lazy-ass journalist to actually do this. Let’s see: It’s Election Day, so you want to put some pictures in the newspaper, but instead of going outside and taking new pictures of voters you just pull out the stock photo of some dude wearing a “Kerry-Edwards ’04” t-shirt and slap that on the front page? You’ve gotta be kidding me.
Anyway, the conclusion of the argument says, “The use of historical photographs in this manner… distorts public understanding.” We are asked to find an answer choice that “enables the conclusion of the argument to be properly inferred.” In other words, we are asked to
prove the conclusion of the argument. To do so, we are allowed to choose one answer choice, A through E, to use as an additional premise.
Usually, we can predict the answer on this type of question very closely. Since the premises all have to be accepted as fact, all we have to do is connect, directly, any one of the premises with the conclusion. We can do this with a smallish bridge: “Overstating the similarities between past and present distorts public understanding,” or, “Denying the individual significance of current events distorts public understanding”.
I could also do it with a much bigger bridge, something like, “Any use of photographs distorts public understanding,” or even, “Everything anyone ever does distorts public understanding.” The correct answer probably isn’t going to be that absurdly big, but it could be and still be the correct answer. We’re not being asked to identify an assumption that the speaker actually made; we’re being asked to act as attorney for the speaker, and identify an additional fact that, if true, would prove the speaker’s conclusion true.
Whether the bridge is big or small, it will get us to the desired conclusion. Let’s see.
A) There’s nothing about “distortion” here, so this can’t be the answer. At least one end of my bridge has to be the conclusion of the argument.
B) Okay, this one matches our first prediction, above. This will turn out to be our answer.
C) How can we prove distortion with a premise that starts out “
If a practice distorts”? That would be assuming our conclusion (circular reasoning). This is out.
D) Nothing here about distortion. No way.
E) This one is irrelevant because there is no premise that talks about journalist’s beliefs. One end of the bridge here is properly grounded in the conclusion, but the other end of the bridge is floating in the ocean.
Our answer is B, because it’s the only bridge from the premises to the desired conclusion.