PT155.S4.Q14 > Question

SECTION 1 · lr

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25

SECTION 2 · lr

SECTION 3 · rc

PASSAGE 1

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7

PASSAGE 2

Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15

PASSAGE 3

Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21 Question 22

PASSAGE 4

Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26 Question 27

SECTION 4 · lr

The author concludes that still photography cannot enable us to understand the world. She states that understanding the world requires looking at the world’s reality, which requires focusing on it’s functions, which can only be explained in time. She uses these to reach the intermediate conclusion that only things that are narrative can allow us to understand the world. This in turn is used to support the conclusion that still photography cannot enable us to understand the world.

A big assumption is that still photography cannot be narrative. The stimulus tells us that only narrative things can allow us to understand the world, but doesn’t give us information about what is considered narrative. If someone put 10 still photos together to tell a story, is that narrative? For the argument to be valid, we need to know that it isn’t.

The intention of the photographers doesn’t matter — it only matters whether they can help us understand the world. They might be attempting to understand the world, but unable to help us actually understand the world.

The argument talks about explaining the functioning of the world. It could be that photography can capture the functioning, but can’t do anything to explain and help us understand it.

Additionally, film might be referring to something broader than just still photography.

We know from the stimulus that something must be narrative to enable us to understand the world, and the conclusion is that still photography cannot enable us to understand the world. To bridge these, we need to know that still photography is not narrative.

This isn’t necessary. The conclusion could still be true if film or acting could allow us to fully understand the world. The conclusion is about still photography specifically.

The argument isn’t concerned with whether still images can be explained — it’s about whether still photos can explain the functioning of the world. It could be that images can be explained perfectly fine, but that those explanations just don’t help us understand the world.

PrepTest 155 - Section 4 - Question 14

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action