Self-study
Journalists sometimes use historical photographs to illustrate articles about current events. ███ ████ █████████ ██ ███ ███████████ ██████████ ███ ████████████ ███████ ████ ███ ████████ ███ ███████ ██████ ███ ██████████ ████████████ ██ █████ ███████ ███████ ██████ ███ ███ ██ ██████████ ███████████ ██ ████ ██████ ██ ███████████ ████████ ██████ █████████████ ██ ███ ███████ ██ ██████████ ███████ ██████ ██ ████ ███████████ ██ ██████████ ██████████
Summary
The author concludes that a journalistic practice (use of historical photographs) warps public perception of the present. For support, she cites that the practice makes past and present seem more similar than they really are, causing current events to seem less important.
Missing Connection
The conclusion is about warping public understanding, but there is no information on what qualifies as warping public understanding. The premise would lead to the conclusion if we knew that at least one of the effects (overstating similarities or current events seeming less important) of the journalistic practice means that public perception is distorted.
13.
Which one of the following, ██ ████████ ███████ ███ ██████████ ██ ███ ████████ ██ ██ ████████ █████████
a
Any practice by █████ ███████████ ███████ ███████ ██████ ██ ████ ███████████ ██ ██████████ █████████ ██████████ ███ ████████████ ███████ ████ ███ ████████
This does not lead to a conclusion about warping public perception. It leads to something we already know—that this practice overstates similarities between past and present.
b
If the work ██ █ ██████████ ██████████ ███ ████████████ ███████ ████ ███ ████████ ████ ██ ████████ ██████ █████████████ ██ ███ ███████ ██ ██████████ ███████ ██████ ██ ████ ███████████ ██ ██████████ ██████████
This is a direct link from a known effect of the journalistic practice to the distortion of public perception.
c
If a journalistic ████████ ████████ ██████ █████████████ ██ ███ ███████ ██ ███████████ ███ ████████████ ███████ ████ ███ ████████ ████ ██ ██████ ███ ██████████ ████████████ ██ ███ ████████ █████ ███████ ███████
In the sufficient condition, this answer combines conclusion with premise. We cannot use this, because we cannot trigger a sufficient condition that is wholly or in part made of what we are already trying to prove (that the practice distorts public understanding).
d
No article about █ ███████ █████ ██████ ████ █████ ██ ██████ █ ██████████ ██ ██████████ █████████ ██████ ██ ████ ██████████ ███████████ ██ ██████████ ████ ████████
Phrased differently, this is “If an article about a current event treats that event... then it uses historical photographs...”, but we do not need to conclude that anyone is using historical photographs.
e
If journalists believe ███████ ██████ ██ ██ ████ ███████████ ██ ██████████ ██████████ ████ ██████ █████████████ ██ ███ ███████ ████ ██ ██████████
Belief is irrelevant; we don’t know anything about what the journalists believe.