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.
19.
The editors' dialogue provides the ████ ███████ ███ ███ █████ ████ ████ ████████ ████ ████ █████ █████ ███████
a
a photograph's composition ██████ ██ ███████ ██ █ █████████ ████ ██ █████
Should a photograph's composition be related to a statement that it makes?
Editor Y: ❓Editor Z: ❓
Neither speaker discusses whether composition and statement-making need to be connected. Y mentions composition but never brings up statements. Z brings up statements but never connects that requirement back to composition specifically. They're each focused on different criteria for evaluating a photograph, but neither comments on the relationship between those criteria.
b
a photograph that ██ ███ ██████████ ███ █████ ██ █ ████ ██████████
Can a photograph that is not attractive still be a good photograph?
Editor Y: ❓Editor Z: ❓
Y says this photograph is good because it's attractive. That tells us Y thinks attractiveness is sufficient for being good. But it doesn't tell us whether Y thinks attractiveness is necessary for being good. Y never addresses whether an unattractive photograph could still be good for other reasons. And Z doesn't weigh in on this either. Z only tells us that attractiveness isn't enough, not whether it's required.
c
a photograph that █████ ██ █████████ ███ █████ ██ ██████████
Can a photograph that makes no statement still be attractive?
Editor Y: ❓Editor Z: ✅
Z actually proves this can happen. Z says the photograph is "very pretty" while also saying it doesn't make a statement. So Z clearly thinks a photograph can be attractive without making a statement. But Y never addresses the relationship between making a statement and attractiveness. Y doesn't comment on whether the photograph makes a statement at all. Since only one speaker has a clear position, this isn't a point of disagreement.
d
attractiveness by itself ███ ████ █ ██████████ █ ████ ██████████
Can attractiveness by itself make a photograph a good photograph?
Editor Y: ✅Editor Z: ❌
Y says yes. Y's entire case for the photograph being good rests on its attractive composition. Y doesn't cite any other quality. This tells us Y believes attractiveness alone is sufficient to make a photograph good.
Z says no. Z concedes the photograph is "very pretty" but still calls it bad because it doesn't make a statement. If attractiveness alone were enough, Z would have to call the photograph good. But Z doesn't. Z requires something more. That's a clear disagreement.
e
attractive composition and ██████████ ███ ███ ████ ███████
Are attractive composition and prettiness the same feature?
Editor Y: ❓Editor Z: ❓
Y uses the word "attractive" and Z uses the word "pretty," but neither speaker comments on whether these are the same thing or different things. You might notice the different word choices and wonder if they matter, but neither speaker treats the distinction (or lack of one) as relevant to their argument.