BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

PHOTO

Expert replies
by sogmat » Tue Apr 14, 2009 6:14 pm
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 the truth about it.

OA -A
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by delhiboy1979 » Tue Apr 14, 2009 11:12 pm
Between A and D I pick A because D goes partly out of scope with using photographs as corroborative evidence.
Join the discussion

A would be correct

The Premise is the photo cannot express the whole truth and, in that sense, is false. The conclusion based on this premise makes sense that whatever is false in the sense that it cannot express the truth, cannot furnish definitive proof.

B is wrong

C is wrong

D is irrelevant as there is no mention about how the photo used as evidence and additional factors are being introduced which suggest it as a causal flaw. There is no flaw, the question is asking for the conclusion

E is completely opposite of what is being said in paragraph about photography. "There is no truth about it."
Regards,
Arvind
Join the discussion

mharv wrote:A would be correct

The Premise is the photo cannot express the whole truth and, in that sense, is false. The conclusion based on this premise makes sense that whatever is false in the sense that it cannot express the truth, cannot furnish definitive proof.

B is wrong

C is wrong

D is irrelevant as there is no mention about how the photo used as evidence and additional factors are being introduced which suggest it as a causal flaw. There is no flaw, the question is asking for the conclusion

E is completely opposite of what is being said in paragraph about photography. "There is no truth about it."
Why C is wrong?

If we negate C then Conclusion gets weakened.

C. It is not possible to determine the truthfulness of a photograph in any sense

Negation: It is possible to determine the truthfulness of a photograph in any sense

and conclusion : Therefore, nothing can ever be definitively proved with a photograph.

Am I missing something here?

Cheers
Piyush
Join the discussion

piyush_nitt wrote: Why C is wrong?

If we negate C then Conclusion gets weakened.

C. It is not possible to determine the truthfulness of a photograph in any sense

Negation: It is possible to determine the truthfulness of a photograph in any sense

and conclusion : Therefore, nothing can ever be definitively proved with a photograph.

Am I missing something here?

Cheers
Piyush
C is wrong because it is too extreme and the same reason holds good for B.
Reasoning for D and E has already been provided above.

The conclusion states, nothing can ever be definitely proved with a photograph.
The word definitive is key here.
A correctly follows this track to say that if something is false, because it does not express the whole truth, then it cannot be treated as definitive proof. It hence ties Stmt#2 and Stmt#3 in the argument, together.
Join the discussion

by krisraam » Wed Apr 15, 2009 10:56 am
IMO A.

The conclusion "Nothing can definitely be proven with a photograph" is properly drawn if we assume that "The false part a photograph has is enough that it can;t form a definitive proof"

Thanks
Raama
Join the discussion

by mikeCoolBoy » Thu Apr 16, 2009 4:55 am
IMO C

because it could always have been made to show things differently than it does therefore nothing can ever be definitively proved with a photograph.

from my point of view if we negate C the argument falls apart [/b]
Join the discussion

by samanthaJ79 » Sun May 15, 2016 4:46 am
I will go with option A
Join the discussion