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
[此贴子已经被作者于2006-8-21 16:02:03编辑过] |