#14 - Deborra: The art of still photography cannot enable us

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Assumption, SN. The correct answer choice is (C).

There's a lot going on in this stimulus! The conclusion is the first sentence, which is that still photography cannot enable us to understand the world. The author then takes us through a fairly convoluted discussion of where understanding begins and the importance of focusing on function rather than images (and that discussion can be dissected with conditional diagrams, as James does later in this thread). In the final phrase of the stimulus, though, we are saved from all that confusion by the introduction of a very simple conditional statement: "only that which narrates can enable us to understand." Thanks to this claim, we can attack this argument with a simple conditional diagram:

Premise: EU (enable us to understand) N (narrates)

Conclusion: SP (still photography) EU

In order to arrive at a conclusion that the sufficient condition (EU) cannot occur, the author must have assumed the contrapositive, which means that the necessary condition (narrates) does not occur. Using a diagram, the author assumed this:

SP N

That's our prephrase, and we take that into sorting the answers into losers and contenders.

Answer choice (A): This answer does not trigger the contrapositive as it does nothing to deal with how photography relates to narration, but only what photographers are attempting to accomplish.

Answer choice (B): No connection is made in this answer between photography and narration.

Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice. This is a perfect match for our prephrase. Winner!

Answer choice (D): No mention of photography or narration makes this answer a certain loser. Focus on the conclusion - we must discuss still photography in the correct answer!

Answer choice (E): This answer certainly includes the idea of still photography, which after all does produce images, but once again there is no connection made to the idea of narration, and so it too is a loser.

For a more detailed look at how the other claims in the stimulus can be handled conditionally, check out James' post below. In the heat of the moment during the test, though, with the clock ticking, start with a simple approach and focus on the relationship between the conclusion and the most obvious conditional claim that shares something in common with it.

[annrachweila]

Hi,
I was in between answer choices B and C, and ultimately chose B. I chose B after I negated the answer choice to read "the functioning of the world CAN be captured on film". If that's true, doesn't that destroy the stimulus' conclusion that still photography cannot enable us to understand the world? The premise for the stimulus' conclusion is that still photography isn't able to capture the world's functions, making it unable to enable us to understand the world. In contrast, if the functioning of the world CAN be captured on film (according to B's negation), doesn't it mean that still photography can enable us to understand the world?

[James Finch]

Hi Ann,

Assumption, SN. The correct answer choice is (C).

This question's stimulus uses conditional logic, so it's worth diagramming it out to understand exactly what it's saying. The first sentence is our conclusion, as you note, and the conditional chain begins with the second sentence.

Conclusion: Still Photography (SP) Enable Understanding (EU)

Premise 1: Understanding (U) Accept world as it looks (AWL) + Inquire into world's reality (IWR)

Premise 2: IWR Functions (F)

Premise 3: F Time (T)

Premise 4: EU Narrative (N)

From this, we can see two different conditional chains:

U AWL + IWR

IWR F T

and

EU N

So to Prephrase this Supporter Assumption question, we need to show either that SP N, or that SP AWL or IWR. We can test by using the Assumption Negation test and seeing if the conditional conclusion no longer holds (ie that still photography could enable understanding).

Answer choice (A): Doesn't apply to either enabling understanding or still photography, so immediate loser.

Answer choice (B): Could apply to photography, but only a portion of it (film, not digital),.but more commonly applies to something that isn't still photography: movies. Negated, it comes to:

Film can capture the functioning of the world, therefore still photography can enable us to understand the world.

If we read "film" to mean all and only still photography this would work, but unfortunately, it could also apply to movies, and excludes digital photography. So the scope is off and doesn't help us with the conclusion.

Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice, as it simply applies SP N, which when taken with the contrapositive of the last sentence gives us:

SP N EU

Exactly what's given in the conclusion. The negation would also get us there:

SP N, therefore SP can EU, as N is a necessary condition for EU.

Answer choice (D): Subtle change from "enabling understanding" to "complete understanding" makes this incorrect.

Answer choice (E): Completely irrelevant, as explanation isn't a condition in the stimulus.

Hope this clears things up!

[yubn93]

Hi James,

As you said, there are two ways to connect the premises to the conclusion. Answer choice C reflects one of them.If there are two ways, then neither should be a necessary condition since there is always an alternative. However, this question is asking for a necessary condition. Then, why C is still correct?

Thanks.
Best,
Bo

[Adam Tyson]

The reason there are two alternative ways to get to the right answer, yubn93, is that BOTH of them are required. If one is missing, the argument falls apart! It's possible, even common, for an argument to require multiple assumptions, such as this one. The author must assume that still photography is not narrative and also that it is not explained in time, so either of those could be a correct answer.

Here's an analogy:

Premise: I need a dog

Conclusion: I must adopt Fluffy

What am I assuming? Lots of things! I am assuming that Fluffy is a dog. I am assuming that no other dogs are available. I am assuming that adoption is the only means by which to acquire Fluffy. Any of these would be a correct answer to an assumption question about this argument, and the fact that there is more than one possible answer does not mean that the others are not necessary.

I approached this argument a little differently than James did. While his approach is correct, I never paid attention to the claims in the middle about where understanding starts and what reality is, because their conditional nature was so much more subtle to me than the last claim, which totally jumped off the page and smacked me in the forehead. To me, this argument simply boiled down to a premise that understanding requires narration and a conclusion that still photography cannot lead to understanding. The gap was obvious, via the contrapositive - the author has to assume that still photography is not narrative, and answer C matched that prephrase. The rest of the stimulus was, in my mind, just a bunch of noise.

I hope that clarifies things for you!

[lalalala]

Hi,

I see how C is the correct answer, however, I ruled it out because I thought that it would be the answer for a sufficient assumption question, rather than a necessary assumption, considering C is sufficient to make the conclusion true.

I incorrectly used this as a reason to eliminate C. I guess my question is, it's possible for an answer to a necessary assumption question to also be an answer to a sufficient assumption question? Or is this only when all the other ACs are not as good?

Please let me know. This question really upset me lol.

Thanks so much for all your help! You guys are the best!

[Jonathan Evans]

Hi, lalalala,

Good questions!

Let's address each of them separately.

It is possible for an assumption to be both sufficient and necessary for a conclusion to be valid.

For instance, in the classic example:

1. All men are mortal.
2. Socrates is a man.
3. Conclusion: Socrates is mortal.

Proposition (2) that "Socrates is a man" is both sufficient and necessary for our conclusion to be valid.

On this question, you are correct that given the information in answer choice (C), the conclusion that "still photography cannot enable us to understand the world" would indeed be valid. It is sufficient.

However, this answer choice also checks out using the Assumption Negation™ test. If still photography were narrative, the author's conclusion that "still photography cannot enable us to understand the world" would no longer make sense. The argument depends on still photography's assumed lack of narration.

Does this make sense? I hope this helps!

[lalalala]

Hi, lalalala,

Good questions!

Let's address each of them separately.

It is possible for an assumption to be both sufficient and necessary for a conclusion to be valid.

For instance, in the classic example:

1. All men are mortal.
2. Socrates is a man.
3. Conclusion: Socrates is mortal.

Proposition (2) that "Socrates is a man" is both sufficient and necessary for our conclusion to be valid.

On this question, you are correct that given the information in answer choice (C), the conclusion that "still photography cannot enable us to understand the world" would indeed be valid. It is sufficient.

However, this answer choice also checks out using the Assumption Negation™ test. If still photography were narrative, the author's conclusion that "still photography cannot enable us to understand the world" would no longer make sense. The argument depends on still photography's assumed lack of narration.

Does this make sense? I hope this helps!

Hi Jonathan,

Thank you for your detailed response. That helps a lot!

[sxzhao]

Hi Couching Team & ALL,

My problem with choice C is that I think it's a sufficient condition but not necessary. WHY? because as you diagrammed above: Understand -> narrate, which tells us narrativeness is required for one to understand the world. So yes, if Choice C is true, then the argument is true.

But by negating choice C: still photography is narrative. Great, now we know a necessary condition is met, but it does not wreck the argument that still photography cannot enable us to understand the world.

I've not been convinced by the explanation

[Jeff Wren]

Hi sxzhao,

While there usually are important differences between an answer that is sufficient for an argument and an answer that is necessary for an argument, and it is certainly important to know which you are looking for and approach these questions differently, there are times (particularly in conditional arguments) where an assumption can be both sufficient and necessary for the argument.

I'm going to refer back to Jonathan's example first, as it can be easier to follow.

Premise: All men are mortal.

Conclusion: Socrates is mortal.

The assumption (i.e. the unstated premise) in this argument is that "Socrates is a man." This statement is both sufficient and necessary for the argument.

If you were to negate this statement, it would be "Socrates is not a man." This negated statement does attack/basically destroy the argument. If Socrates is not a man, then the conclusion has absolutely zero support for it based on the premise and makes zero logical sense. Sure, it's still possible that Socrates is mortal (for example, if Socrates is the name of my dog), but it's also possible that Socrates is not mortal (for example, if Socrates is the name of my pet rock). But either way, the argument as written requires Socrates to be a man. Of course, the conclusion itself may be able to be proven separately even if Socrates is not a man, but that would be a different argument with different premises.

The argument in this question follows the same logical structure.

If "the art of still photography is narrative" as the negation of Answer C would state, then there is absolutely no support for the conclusion that still photography cannot help us understand the world based on the premises. The argument is assuming/relying on the fact that still photography is not narrative, combined with the fact that being narrative is necessary to enable us to understand, to draw the conclusion.

There are many examples on the LSAT of correct answers to Supporter Assumption questions with conditional reasoning that do in fact Justify the argument. (In other words, the correct answer is also sufficient for the argument even though the question asked for a necessary assumption of the argument), so it's important to understand that this can and does sometimes happen.