Deborra: The art of still photography cannot enable us to understand the world. After all, understanding starts from ...

MargueriteHS on July 22, 2020

Could you please explain this question and answer?

I answered (B) for this question. Could you explain why that is incorrect? (And what the correct answer is?)

Create a free account to read and take part in forum discussions.

Already have an account? log in

Ravi on July 23, 2020

@MargueriteHS, happy to help. The conclusion of the argument is the first sentence. There, the author says that still photography an not enable us to understand the world. The last portion of the argument gives us a conditional statement that says that only that which narrates can enable us to understand. From this statement, we know

Enables us to understand-->narrates

And the author's conclusion is

Still photography-->cannot enable us to understand

In order for us to get to the conclusion that EU can't happen, the author must be assuming the contrapositive of the statement provided at th end of the argument, which implies that narrates (the necessary condition) didn't happen. Thus, the author assumed

Still photography-->does not narrate

If we add this assumption to the argument, we get

Still photography-->does not narrate-->cannot enable us to understand

We're looking for an answer choice that says the author is assuming that still photography doesn't narrate. The author me be assuming this.

(B) is incorrect because this answer choice doesn't contain a connection between photography and narration, so we can get rid of it.

(C) is correct because it matches our anticipation. If we negate (C), the argument totally falls apart, so we know (C) is a necessary premise.

Does this make sense? Let us know if you have any other questions!