Camera manufacturers typically advertise their

Answer choices

1. A

   Too Strong: unimportant9% picked this

   The definition of the term “resolution” does not capture an important determinant of the quality of

   The author hasn't committed to the view that "resolution" is an unimportant determinant overall; she's only saying it's an irrelevant specification for practical photography, since even the worst resolution available is already a good-enough resolution.

   9%
2. B

   Correct64% picked this

   In determining the amount of detail reproduced in the developed photographic image, differences in the resolutions of available lenses do not compound

   Why this is right

   Yikes, tough answer. We always find it enticing on Necessary Assumption when the answer is structured in a "it is not the case that ____ " way. If we negate this answer, it's saying that "differences in resolution of available lenses do compound the deficiencies of available film." Does that weaken? Yes, that gives us a (confusing) way to say that different resolutions could be relevant to practical photography. We'd be saying, "sure, Camera X can do 10,000 dots per inch. Camera Y can do 5,000 dots per inch. And film is only capable of reproducing 1,000 dots per inch. But ... when film is degraded, it doesn't live up to its max capacity. It might only successfully develop an image that is 800 dots per inch. Camera X, on degraded film, might achieve 800 dots per inch, whereas Camera Y, on the same degraded film, would only muster 700 dots per inch." An easier way to think of this is that the author was assuming that different lens resolutions have no effect on the developed image, since the film's max resolution is lower than the resolution of all these lenses. But when we negate this answer, it's giving us a way in which different lens resolutions could have an effect (and thus could be relevant for practical photography).

   Skill tested: Necessary Assumption · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   64%
3. C

   Out of Scope: processing methods15% picked this

   Variations in the method used to process the film do not have any significant effect

   The author doesn't need to believe that different processing methods have no effect on film resolution. Even if different processing methods have a significant effect on film resolution, the premise will still be true that all lenses are capable of more detail than the film is capable of. So we still haven't weakened the argument, because we haven't come up with a way where different resolutions of lenses would have any relevant impact on practical photography.

   15%
4. D

   Too Strong: flawless technique / needed1% picked this

   Flawless photographic technique is needed to achieve the maximum image resolution possible with the materials

   The author hasn't committed herself to the idea that in order to achieve max image resolution given your materials and equipment, you have to be 100% perfect at what you're doing.

   1%
5. E

   Too Strong12% picked this

   The only factors important in determining the degree of detail reproduced in the final photographic print are the resolution of the camera’s lens

   Too Strong: the only Only Thing Mentioned ? Only Thing This is a frequent trap answer pattern. It takes the only stuff the author mentioned and then acts like the author is assuming "that's the only stuff". If we negate this answer, we get that "there is at least one other factor besides lens resolution and film resolution that is important in determining the detail in the photo print". Does that negation weaken the argument? No. Our author doesn't need lens resolution and film resolution to be the only things. Our author is only arguing that it doesn't matter whether you go with a lens resolution of 10,000 vs. 5,000, since the max resolution of film is 1,000.

   12%