Q10

[kjsmit02]

I initially picked B, as it also seems to fit the suspension of belief as reflected in lines 34-36. If paintings, unlike photos, could depict impossible situations, wouldn't this too present a reason why paintings could suspend beliefs unlike photos?

If I had to argue against, I guess a mere depiction of an impossible situation doesn't tell us anything about why a there'd be a suspension of belief in the painting. Furthermore, the subsequent lines following 34-36 make claims that match up perfectly with D.

Any clarification would be great!

[xueqing.shan]

I was hesitating between B and D but eventually settled on D. If you read the entire paragraph, from the beginning to line 34 is pretty much about how we can see from Cameron's fancy-subject pictures that the sitters are trying meticulously hard to sit still. We can see this because photography preserves every single detail of their sitting, and thus we can't suspend our disbelief. By contrast, we can suspend our disbelief when it comes to paintings because it doesn't necessarily involves all these details. In other words, D is pretty much what we can infer from the rest of the paragraph.

[maryadkins]

We're looking to EXPLAIN the claim about the suspension of disbelief. In other words, what is the author's claim? (D) does this. (B) misses the mark because the claim is not about how paintings can depict "obviously impossible" situations. Catch the extreme language there?

(A) isn't what this section is about or relying on.

(C) and (E) neither.

[phoebster21]

Two quick points I have about why B is wrong.

1) if the painter can paint an obviously impossible situation, wouldn't that be less likely for a viewer to be able to suspend their disbelief? Why would I ever believe a man flying through the air wearing a loin cloth and fighting zeus would be real?

2) Even if it isn't actually making it harder to suspend a disbelief, this is a common wrong answer choice for resolve/explain LR Q's. I've noticed that wrong answers often just give us more examples of the phenomenon to be explained, without actually explaining it. For instance, lets say that I have this paradox of "people who eat vitamin C tend to be healthier and their doctors recommend to eat vitamin C. However, for people with certain types of bone disease, their doctors suggest to stay away from vitamin C consumption." A common wrong answer would just state something like "people with certain types of bone diseases consume, on average, less vitamin C than those without such diseases." Okay, so this answer does technically conform with the weird phenomenon but it doesn't actually EXPLAIN why it is that way?