Q16 - Camera manufacturers typically advertise

[haeaznboiyoung]

Okay I've read the argument 50 times and I just can't fully comprehend what it's saying. Main issue I have is the difference between modern lenses and "photographic film"

C: Differences are irrelevant b/c modern lenses are so excellent they project far mroe detail on to the fil than any "photographic film" is capable of reproducing in a developed image.

I am pretty camera stupid so I had hard time following.... but

Is the argument saying modern lenses are better at showing good quality images on film than...

if you simply took an existing copy of an image (photographic film) and reproduced it?

[aileenann]

This argument is saying that camera manufacturers seek to distinguish themselves by talking about their lens quality but that such distinctions are not actually important because they are all so good that the film can't keep up with the lenses already.

An analogous argument would go something like this. Different restaurants try to differentiate themselves by promising to feed you the most food. But these promises are irrelevant because none of us can possibly eat as much as these restaurants are planning to or able to give us.

I hope this helps! Please let me know if you have more questions

[skapur777]

What exactly does choice A say and why is it wrong?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Great question!

The argument's conclusion is that "Differences between cameras in this respect are irrelevant for practical photography."

Its support for this claim is that all modern lenses are so excellent with respect to "resolution" that no one lens does a noticeably better job than another.

That does not mean that "resolution" is unimportant in determining the quality of a photograph. Answer choice (A) says that "resolution" is unimportant. But we know that it's the differences between lenses that are unimportant, since all available lenses are so good.

(A) is contradicted by the first sentence that describes how resolution is related to the quality of the photograph.
(B) is correct. If the differences in the resolutions of available did compound the deficiencies of photographic images, the conclusion would be undermined.
(C) is out of scope. The conclusion is about whether differences in resolution of available lenses have a noticeable difference, but doesn't address other factors.
(D) is out of scope.
(E) is too limiting. The conclusion is only about "resolution" and not about other factors. But the conclusion doesn't exclude the possibility of other factors influencing the quality of a photographic image.

Does that answer your question?

#officialexplanation

[gotomedschool]

Does someone want to explain to me what the heck "compounding the deficiencies of available film means"

I get what the answer is getting at: In determining the amount of detail reproduced in the developed photographic image, differences in the resolutions of available lenses do not compound the deficiencies of the available film.


What I assume it means is that basically, the different resolutions don't have an effect on the film. The stimulus says the resolutions don't matter because all of the cameras produce more detail then the film can keep up with. Is B saying that the different resolutions don't do anything bad to the film available?

Idk this is giving me a headache just trying to think about it haha

[LSAT-Chang]

I'm still having so much trouble with this question. I just can't seem to get the assumption questions right. It is really driving me crazy...

So the core I have is just like what Matt had above:

The conclusion is that differences between cameras in respect to resolution is irrelevant for practical photography. WHy? Because all modern lenses are so excellent that they project far more detail onto the film than any photographic film is capable of reproducing in a developed image.

I don't even get what the author is assuming and I chose (C) for this because I was only able to eliminate (D). Please please help..

[yama_sekander]

okay, so im not sure if my train of thought is right but this is how i broke down the answer.

Premise: since all lenses project far better detail than the film is able to reproduce in an image, it is irrelevant for practical photography to decide between various cameras.

so basically, because all cameras already are doing more than the films can handle (detail wise) it doesn't matter what camera you pick. also note that the argument says "in this respect" which limits the scope of the argument. this can also be equivocated to mean " for this purpose". now that we have the argument core lets look at the answer:


A. if we look at our core, definition does not affect the point at hand. besides, based on the first sentence, we see that the term resolution does capture an important determinant of quality. so eliminate

C. C talks about variations in the method used to process film... the argument core does not talk about the METHOD used. so this is irrelevant. plus, if we were to take this answer as true, how would this affect the conclusion about how its irrelevant what camera we choose (based on the resolution)?

D. flawless photographic technique. this brings in something new and is irrelevant to the argument


E. E is perhaps tempting but there are two errors. first is that whenever you see a strong word such as "only" we should be weary. strong words require strong language in the argument core.

the second, and more pertinent issue, is that if we were to negate the argument. that is "resolution of the lens and resolution of the film are not the only factors important in determining the degree of detail", this has no effect on the conclusion. remember, the conclusion is concerned about the irrelevancy of choosing between various cameras (based on their resolution capabilities). plus it doesn't matter, because we already know that all lenses are too strong for the film to capture each detail, so why should this answer matter. therefore, we eliminate it.


that leaves us with B. in my interpretation, this is what B says: "in determining the amount of detail produced by in the developed photographs image, the difference in resolution do not help out the deficiencies of available film"

lets examine this: okay so we know based on our main premise that all lenses are too strong for films to produce each and every detail. but what if variations in the lenses could in some way help out the deficiency present? therefore, if we were to negate this answer: ""in determining the amount of detail produced by in the developed photographs image, the difference in resolution DO help out the deficiencies of available film" Then this would destroy the argument.

also, note that this is the only answer that touches the issue of the differences in the resolutions of available lenses which is the whole argument!


hope this helps

[Jahma002]

B: the correct answer tells us that the differences in resolution does not "compound" deficiencies. Meaning differences does not make it worse for the photograph.

A: is talking about definition and materials, which doesn't change the premise given in the stimulus. Falls way outside the scope.

C: Nowhere near affecting the argument whatsoever

D: No, bottleneck still persist

E: Answer choice D could be correct which goes against choice E and argument still stands.

Hope this helps,
Ahmad