17. Every photograph, because it involves the light rays that something emits hitting film, must in some obvious sense be true. But because it could always have been made to show things differently than it does, it cannot express the whole truth and, in that sense, is false. Therefore, nothing can ever be definitively proved with a photograph.
Which one of the following is an assumption that would permit the conclusion above to be properly drawn?
(A) Whatever is false in the sense that it cannot express the whole truth cannot furnish definitive proof.
(B) The whole truth cannot be known.
(C) It is not possible to determine the truthfulness of a photograph in any sense.
(D) It is possible to use a photograph as corroborative evidence if there is additional evidence establishing the truth about the scene photographed.
(E) If something is being photographed, then it is possible to prove definitively the truth about it.
这道题没有人问过,土土问一句,这道题很简单么?
答案为什么是A呀.
I just read today in economist about new technlogy developed to atuthenticate photography, so this question makes sense to me.
The stem with some difficult wording essentially is "Photograph must be showing real things(in partial truth) , but it is possible to it is not showing the whole truth, therefore photograph can not prove anything." For example, picture showing somebody is crying doesnt necessary prove that person is sad if the picture doesnt show it is cutting a pepper.
Isnt this a little too extreme? The assumption here is A, that whatever cannot show whole truth cannot furnish(contribute to) definitive proof.
The rest answer choices are pretty much jokes if you grasp the stem.
Here is the link to that economist's article, if you are interested
http://www.economist.com/science/displayStory.cfm?story_id=7791849
太感谢了!受益匪浅.
| 欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) | Powered by Discuz! X3.3 |