Self-study
Editor Y: Conclusion This is a good photograph: Support the composition is attractive, especially in the way the image is blurred by smoke in one corner.
██████ ██ ████ ████ ███████ ███ ████ █ ███ ███████████ ██ ███████ ████ █ ██████████ ███████ ██ ███████ ██████ ███ ███ █████ ██ ██ ██████
Editor Y's Argument
Editor Y concludes that the photograph is good. The basis? Its composition is attractive, particularly the way smoke blurs one corner of the image. Notice that Y doesn't mention anything about the photograph needing to convey a message or have a purpose behind its visual elements. For Y, attractiveness is enough.
Editor Z's Argument
Editor Z concedes that the photograph is "very pretty" but still concludes it's a bad photograph. Why? Because it doesn't make a statement, and there's no obvious reason for the smoke to be there. Z is applying a standard beyond attractiveness: a good photograph also needs to say something. Without that, prettiness alone doesn't cut it.
This is an interesting concession. Z isn't arguing that the photograph is ugly. Z agrees it looks nice. But Z thinks looking nice isn't the whole story when it comes to whether a photograph is good.
Anticipation
The speakers clearly disagree about whether the photograph is good. But the deeper, more subtle disagreement is about what it takes for a photograph to be good. Y seems to think that if a photograph is attractive, that's enough to call it good. Z thinks attractiveness isn't enough on its own. You need something more, like making a statement.
Analysis by Kevin_Lin
19.
The editors' dialogue provides the ████ ███████ ███ ███ █████ ████ ████ ████████ ████ ████ █████ █████ ███████
a
a photograph's composition ██████ ██ ███████ ██ █ █████████ ████ ██ █████
b
a photograph that ██ ███ ██████████ ███ █████ ██ █ ████ ██████████
c
a photograph that █████ ██ █████████ ███ █████ ██ ██████████
d
attractiveness by itself ███ ████ █ ██████████ █ ████ ██████████
e
attractive composition and ██████████ ███ ███ ████ ███████