CR 1000

This topic has expert replies
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 400
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 4:04 am
Thanked: 1 times
Followed by:1 members

CR 1000

by f2001290 » Mon Jun 04, 2007 12:46 am
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.
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 69
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2007 1:38 am
Followed by:1 members

by discreet » Wed Jun 06, 2007 12:07 am
B : appears like a Universal truth\statement..is a generalized statement.So,ruled out.
C : is not true and is not the assumption - First line of the argument violates this option.
D : using some additional evidence and its impact is out of scope.
E : goes against the argument?

Its A.

User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 407
Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2011 9:19 am
Thanked: 25 times
Followed by:7 members

by Ozlemg » Sat Jul 30, 2011 5:32 am
Clearly A.
Whatever is false in the sense that it cannot express the whole truth cannot furnish definitive proof. -->The writer of the passage should believe that what ever is wrong, can not furnish proof
The more you suffer before the test, the less you will do so in the test! :)

User avatar
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 52
Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2011 12:07 am
Location: Pune, India
GMAT Score:680

by DhruvXVII » Mon Aug 01, 2011 2:22 am
IMO A.
Options B, C, D sound more like inferences rather than assumptions.

User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 344
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 5:40 am
Thanked: 28 times
Followed by:3 members
GMAT Score:700

by sunnyjohn » Mon Aug 01, 2011 10:56 pm
Got in 1:25 >--> IMO: A

Argument:
a photograph can not be 100% truthful.

(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.
> Extend the scope to "Whole truth".
(C) It is not possible to determine the truthfulness of a photograph in any sense.
> it is not grantee that photo will be 100% userful, but it can be 10%, 20% etc useful.
(D) It is possible to use a photograph as corroborative evidence if there is additional evidence establishing the truth about the scene photographed.
> Additional evidence, not talked in the stimulus.
(E) If something is being photographed, then it is possible to prove definitively the truth about it.
>It's opposite to C.

We are left with A, Also A makes some sense and none of the other option make even a little sense.