DISCUSSION: You should reread around lines 34-36. The passage says that when you see a painting that tells a story, you can pretend the story is real. But you cannot pretend a photograph is real.
There’s no obvious prephrase for this question. Instead, think about what it’s like to look at paintings vs. photographs and keep your mind open.
- When we suspend our disbelief in front of a painting, we’re looking at the finished product. It doesn’t matter to us how long it took to paint the subjects in the painting.
- This is something true about paintings, but it doesn’t explain anything. If a situation in a painting is obviously impossible, then why do we suspend our disbelief and pretend it’s real?
- This is similar to A. When we look at a painting, we have no idea how long it took to paint. The conditions under which a painting was created don’t impact our impressions of the painting.
- CORRECT. This shows that a painter can reduce contradictory details in a painting. A photographer, on the other hand, has to take their subject as they find them.
I’ll give an example: Suppose a sitter playing Hercules has weak legs. The painter can reproduce their strong upper body, but “fix” their legs so they’re stronger than in real life. Whereas a photographer has to photograph the legs.
- A stylistic imprint doesn’t explain our reaction to paintings.
Want a free Reading Comp lesson?
Get a free sample of the Reading Comprehension Mastery Seminar. Learn tips for solving RC questions