Q13 - Critic: Photographers, by deciding which subjects

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Question Type:
Sufficient Assumption

Stimulus Breakdown:
Photographs express a world view. Therefore photographs are interpretations of reality.

Answer Anticipation:
The gap in this argument is between expressing a world view and interpreting reality.

Correct Answer:
(B)

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) is too weak. This does nothing to guarantee that realistic depictions (which photographs don't always provide) interpret reality.

(B) is correct. This bridges the gap between the expressing a worldview and interpreting reality.

(C) is out of scope. We are not concerned with "all visual art."

(D) reverses the logic of the assumed relationship.

(E) is a premise booster. This supports the premise, but doesn't link the premise to the conclusion.

Takeaway/Pattern: Reasoning: Conditional Logic

#officialexplanation

[legalrabbithole]

Can someone please diagram this argument?

Why is (A) the wrong answer?

[tuh119]

I am not exactly sure so anyone please correct me if I am wrong:

The argument is such:

Photographers express worldview in photographs, however, in fact, those photographs MAY represent reality. So the photographs ARE interpretation of reality.

Based on the argument, photographs DO NOT HAVE TO represent reality, they MAY. However, the conclusion, "(ALL) photographs ARE interpretation of reality", which include the case that even when the PHOTOGRAPHS DO NOT REPRESENT REALITY, they are (still) interpretation of reality. So we have to link the "expression of worldview" to "interpretation of reality" to have the conclusion properly drawn.

If (A) is written like this, then it will still be incorrect:
"Photographs that represent reality are interpretations of reality."
It's wrong because it only cover the part of the argument when the photographs represent reality. It does not cover when photographers express their worldview, but doesn't represent reality.

Hope my post helps you!

[ohthatpatrick]

Great explanation. You really used your understanding of the nuanced meaning in the premise, both to identify how the correct answer cemented together the argument and how choice (A) still left wiggle room for doubting the conclusion, thereby making it incorrect.

When I was first introduced to LSAT, I read all these in a similar way ... i.e., for the real meaning of what was being talked about.

Nowadays, this is how I mentally process a Sufficient Assumption question such as this one:

1. Task - prove the conclusion

2. What's the conclusion?
"photographs are interpretations of reality"

3. What terms in the conclusion are Familiar, and what terms are New?
Familiar - 'photographs'
New - 'interpretations of reality'

(if there is a New Term in the conclusion, that term, or some equivalent paraphrase, MUST be a part of the correct answer)

4. What terms/phrases are Linked to the Familiar Term in the evidence?
'photographs' - express the photographer's worldview

5. What logical link do I need to connect Prem to Conc?
express worldview --> Interpret Reality

(the common form to SA questions is that there is a New Term in the conclusion and a Familiar Term. The Familiar Term is linked in the premise to some idea, or some chain of ideas. The correct answer will take that final Linked Idea and join it to the New Term ... with CONDITIONAL STRENGTH!)

6. Scan answers looking for ones that relate "express worldview" to "interpret reality", and then verify the proper direction of logic.

(B) and (D) both have the right ideas.

Choice (D) would be symbolized
Interpret reality --> Express worldview
i.e.
Conclusion --> Premise

Any time an answer begins "If the conclusion is true ...", you know it's bad. Our job on this test is to prove or evaluate conclusions, never to assume already that they're true.

Choice (B) would be symbolized
Express worldview --> Interpret Reality
i.e.
Premise --> Conclusion

(Note the similarity to the way we represent the argument Core)

------
Points of clarification
------

-When deciding on "interpretations of reality" as New Term, I asked myself, "well the author did mention 'representing reality' is the premise. Is that equivalent to 'interpreting reality'? No. Representing and Interpreting are different.

-When asking myself "what terms/phrases are Linked to the Familiar Term?", I only listed that photographs 'express worldview'. I also considered the disclaimer idea of 'whether or not they represent reality', but it's such a wishy-washy idea, that it doesn't seem like the stable, defining Linked Idea I'm looking for.

- Choice (A) I would have eliminated because it doesn't have the phrase "interpretation of reality", so I know it would never allow me to prove that idea in the conclusion. It does refer to interpreting subjects, but the wishy-washy weakness of the claim would turn me off.

(98.5% of the correct answers to Sufficient Assumption are of conditional strength.)

======
Long response, I know ... I just wanted to show you how robotically I think of Sufficient Assumption questions, to let you know that they lend themselves to a very systematic process. The vast majority of them are basically Math problems with words and phrases as the numbers/variables.

Premise Idea(s) + Answer Choice = Conclusion

[Shiggins]

Thank you Patrick, I was taught in an LSAT class a very similar formulaic way. We called it Bait & Switch. Talk about term connected with another in evidence and then in conclusion a new term is connected with one of the old terms.

[ann8839]

I may post some of my thoughts

At first glance, I chose (A) thinking representing subject (representing reality) can lead to interpreting that subject(reality).

Later, I realize it doesn't justify the conclusion.

Before start, I want to abstract my logic, basically it says
Premise : All A is B, and B may be C.
Conclusion: All A is D
(A) C is D
(B) B is D

First of all, the conclusion is talking about All photographs. However, if we chose(A) as the stimulus saying, " those photographs may (some) represent reality" we can justify partial part of ALL photographs which is some photographs which represent reality.

However, If we chose (B) , it completes the argument for ALL photographs express worldview it can encompass the concept of All photographs.


Here's my thought and please correct me if I'm wrong

[contropositive]

I was between A and B and I picked A without knowing really why B is wrong. Now that I review the question, i see that A is about a particular subject whereas my task is to connect representation of REALITY and interpretation of REALITY. So wouldn't A also be wrong because it discusses representation of SUBJECT and interpretation of SUBJECT?