#9 - Must Be True, Author's Perspective

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation
(See the complete passage discussion here: lsat/viewtopic.php?t=13780)

The correct answer choice is (B)

To determine the author’s attitude toward the use of old photographic techniques, we need to evaluate the language used in the last paragraph and formulate a suitable prephrase. Such is provided in the VIEWSTAMP analysis in the passage discussion.

Answer choice (A): This answer choice is incorrect, because the author is neither hesitant nor skeptical toward the value of using old techniques. Her attitude is overwhelmingly positive.

Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer choice. In the last paragraph of the passage, the use of old photographic techniques is said to reveal “the deeper motivations” of the artists (line 46), ensuring that each production is “one of a kind” (line 50). This language reveals a decidedly positive attitude, respectful of the artists’ aesthetic objectives.

Answer choice (C): We have no reason to believe that the author finds the continued use of old techniques to be ironic or amusing. (Just because you may feel this way does not mean the author shares your views.)

Answer choice (D): This answer choice may seem attractive, but is out of scope. While the author clearly sees the use of old techniques in a positive light, her endorsement is not intended to critique modern photographic technology.

Answer choice (E): This is another attractive, but incorrect, answer choice. The author describes how some of the processes work, but her descriptions are brief and to the point. There is nothing “whimsical” about them. Furthermore, the author shows less curiosity about the ways in which the processes work than about their overall aesthetic value.

[avengingangel]

Why is B a superior answer choice to C? It narrowed it down to those 2, but I didn't feel there was language included that supported appreciative understanding... I felt it was more so calling out the irony, by providing many examples of how Estabrook purposefully used older techniques that weren't necessarily needed. Thanks!

[Adam Tyson]

Angel, the author here talks about a revival of old techniques and shares evidence supporting that they have value. That alone should help eliminate answer C, which calls those techniques obsolete. If they are currently serving a valid purpose, that's certainly not obsolete!

For support for B, how about this language, which begins in line 45:

This preoccupation with contingency offers a clue to the deeper motivations of many of the antiquarian avant-gardists. The widely variable outcome of old techniques virtually guarantees that each production is one of a kind and bears, on some level, the indelible mark of the artist’s encounter with a particular set of circumstances.

That sure sounds like appreciation for their motivation to me! Give it another look and see if you don't come to the same conclusion.

Also, be sure to tie this back to the overall tone of the passage. Is our author merely amused? Does he think this whole revival is kind of silly? I don't think so. It seems much more like he is intrigued, fascinated - at the very least, he's interested, and it feels more positive than just that. An answer like C runs against the overall tone, and that should also push you away from that answer. Be sure to stay true to the main point, tone, and viewpoints in the passage. These questions are, after all, mostly Must Be True types, so the passage has to support them.

Keep at it!

[jenna_d]

I chose D mostly because of the sentence "At the same time, old methods offer the possibility of recovering an intimacy with photographic communication that mass media have all but overwhelmed." I see that the question asks for the author's attitude towards the artists (who do not endorse a criticism of modern methods) but does this sentence imply that the author is critiquing modern methods? Thank you!

[Eric Ockert]

Hi Jenna

For D to be correct you would need to see three things. First, you would need there to be an "implicit critique" of modern technology by the artists. Second, the author would have to do agree with that critique. Finally, that agreement would have to be "enthusiastic." That's a pretty tall order.

It seems that it would be a bit of a stretch to say that that the artists here necessarily have an "implicit critique." The author seems to have one, that modern technology lacks the intimacy of the older methods. But to say the author "enthusiastically" endorses that position also seems a bit exaggerated.

Remember, there is a provability standard that must be met from top to bottom on the correct answer choice. Parse through the elements in the answer (much like I enumerated above) and look to see where each of those elements occurred in the passage. If any one of those doesn't match up, the answer cannot be correct.

Hope that helps!

[cornflakes]

For this one, I realize why I kept D around as a contender for so long - in the question just before, the correct answer includes the idea of "irony" in direct relation to the circumstances of the return to older processes.

I think this irony idea planted a subconscious kernal in my head moving into the next question, where the idea of an "implicit critique" seemed to possibly match up with it. Could the idea that older, admittedly less predictable and idiosyncratic processes, which evolved ironically because the digital revolution is moving in the opposite direction, are being used more be a subtle critique of the evolution of the filmless digital revolution itself?

probably not (although thats where my head initially went). However, even if you sign on completely to this idea, you'd have to show that the author "enthusiastically endorsed" it. While the tone of this author is definitely positive, it's not exactly enthusiastic endorsement.

Curious if any one else went through this cognitive process on this one.

[Robert Carroll]

corn,

I can see how you'd think that way! I think the key is that, while Bidaut, Estabrook, et al. might have an implicit critique (and I'm not sure of that - it seems a bit lacking in support), the author doesn't need to sign off on that critique. My prephrase for this one was "The author thinks it's neat what people are doing," which I think is appropriately favorable but not as far as "enthusiastic", as you pointed out.

Robert Carroll