PrepTest 141

Incorrect. The section in question doesn't say anything about how long it takes to sit for a photograph versus a painting. Additionally, if anything, needing to sit longer would make it more likely that you'd have a look of boredom or discomfort on your face!

Incorrect. We're trying to explain the suspension of disbelief possible for paintings but not for photographs. If anything, portraying something obviously impossible would make that suspension harder!

Incorrect. This answer doesn't speak to whether that makes the painting more or less realistic, or the viewer more or less able to suspend disbelief. This answer highlights a relevant difference, but not a relevant one. (Also, it's not necessarily a difference—it's possible a photograph can also have the people sit at different times. In fact, The Two Ways of Life, mentioned in Line 19, did just that.)

Correct. Question Type:
Paradox

Strategy Overview:
Review the noted claim, clearly define what needs to be explained, and then find an answer that explains it

Answer Anticipation/Relevant Lines:
As with all Paradox questions, we should start by clearly defining what needs to be explained.

Heading back to the cited line here, we can see that narrative paintings and narrative photographs are contrasted. For paintings, we can "suspend our disbelief." For photographs, we can't. It's this difference—why we can suspend our disbelief for one but not the other—that we need an explanation for.

The passage goes on to suggest a reason—for narrative photographs, we're "always aware of the photograph's doubleness" (Lines 36-37). That doubleness is "each figure's imaginary and real personas" (Lines 37-38). In other words, when you look at a narrative photograph, you see a real person that you know isn't the character, but you can still tell the character—so you see the actor and the character. According to the passage, that's why we can't suspend our disbelief.

For a painting, you're not seeing an actual person—just a drawing of the fictional character. As that's a difference in the two situations, it's likely the one that will be reflected in the correct answer. So let's find one that says in a painting, the "doubleness" that's present in a photograph isn't—a relevant difference between the two that allows the suspension of disbelief in one case but not the other.

Answer Explanation:
(Lines 36-37) A photographer can't suppress the features of people in her photograph—she's going to capture their likeness. This would make it more obvious that the person in the photo is an actor, not the person they're portraying. But this answer highlights a relevant difference between a photo and a painting—the painter can suppress features of people to make them look like the character being portrayed. That would make it easier to suspend disbelief and accept the reality of the painting on its own, without the "doubleness" of being aware of the person who served as a model. This answer highlights a relevant difference between photographs and paintings that allow for a suspension of disbelief in the latter but not the former, so this is the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
Paradox questions in RC are just like those in LR—you should start by clearly defining what paradox needs to be resolved/explained. And, just as in LR, many of them will deal with an unexpected difference. In those cases, another relevant difference will generally serve as the correct answer.

Incorrect. If anything, bearing a stylistic imprint would make it easier to recognize the painting as a painting, and call to mind that artist/school/period. Since that would take the viewer out of the painting, it should make it harder to suspend disbelief, thus making the paradox worse.