Could you please explain this question and answer?

@MargueriteHS, happy to help. The conclusion of the argument is the first sentence. There, the author says that still photography an not enable us to understand the world. The last portion of the argument gives us a conditional statement that says that only that which narrates can enable us to understand. From this statement, we know Enables us to understand-->narrates And the author's conclusion is Still photography-->cannot enable us to understand In order for us to get to the conclusion that EU can't happen, the author must be assuming the contrapositive of the statement provided at th end of the argument, which implies that narrates (the necessary condition) didn't happen. Thus, the author assumed Still photography-->does not narrate If we add this assumption to the argument, we get Still photography-->does not narrate-->cannot enable us to understand We're looking for an answer choice that says the author is assuming that still photography doesn't narrate. The author me be assuming this. (B) is incorrect because this answer choice doesn't contain a connection between photography and narration, so we can get rid of it. (C) is correct because it matches our anticipation. If we negate (C), the argument totally falls apart, so we know (C) is a necessary premise. Does this make sense? Let us know if you have any other questions!