Q12 - City councilperson: Many city residents

[shariferguson]

Can you please clarify for me the difference between answer A and D.

Is it because the argument is

Purpose - > Cause Debate
Cause Debate - > Art

Therefore when put all together if it fufills the purpose then it is art.

A - on the other hand says the same thing sort of, no? What makes this answer choice wrong?

[cyruswhittaker]

The argument:

The purpose of art is to cause experts to debate ideas, including ideas as to what art actually is. The edifice results in such debate. Thus, the edifies qualifies as art.

By just looking at the premises of this argument (first two sentences), we can deduce that the edifice fulfills the qualification given for the purpose of art. But notice that the author takes this a step further and claims that the edifice actually qualifies as art itself.

Thus, the assumption needs to link a "fulfillment of the purpose of art" to "qualifies as art." This is exactly what D provides. Notice that if we write out (D) as a conditional statement, we would have the following:

(Object fulfills purpose of art)--> (Qualifies as Art)

Thus, the fulfilling purpose part is a sufficient condition, and hence if satisfied, the necessary condition (qualifies as art), must be satisfied.

This is also the reason why (A) is incorrect. Because of the structure of an "unless" statement, the statement would be as follows:

(Object qualifies as art)-->(causes debate)

But notice that the sufficient condition in this case is "object qualifies as art." However, this is precisely what we are trying to show. The argument provides the necessary condition as a premise; however, knowing a necessary condition does not require the sufficient condition to occur. Thinking so would result in a mistaken reversal of the conditional statement.

Hope this helps.

[Joetrot88]

In this one I charted the stimulus as....

P= purpose of art
D= debate about art
QA=qualifies as art

Conclusion:P -> D
Premise:D-> QA

I inferred right away that the answer might be P->QA because if P->D and D->A then we can infer that P->QA.. keep in mind the conclusion is what art is about not whether it should be purchased or not. The first sentence is just an introduction to this semi-confusing problem and should be ignored after the charting.

So when I got to answer choice (D)
It says Any object that fulfills the purpose of art, qualifies as art.

So that charted is P-> QA
which is what we already inferred, hence answer choice (D) is correct.. circle it and move on...

I did put why the others were incorrect... but on these problems you gotta get em right away and move on, so E shouldn't of even been looked at.

A) QA -> D
*incorrect reversal
B) D->~QA
*incorrect negation
C)P->~opposed
*irrelevant
E)Purchase->QA
*irrelevant

[wgutx08]

Sure, D is a perfect sufficient assumption for the last sentence" it qualifies as art". But isn't this only kind of intermediate conclusion of the entire argument?

I thought the "but" starting the second sentence clearly suggests the real MAIN conclusion: the purchase should NOT be opposed. So I picked C.

Why am I wrong? Any help will be greatly appreciated.

Also, since the wrong answers often have multiple reasons to be wrong, I was checking if C has some other problems that I didn't find. But I still can't find any..

Many thanks in advance!

[maryadkins]

The purpose of art is to cause experts to debate ideas, including ideas as to what art actually is. The edifice results in such debate. Thus, the edifies qualifies as art.

Correct: this is the argument. So the core is:

Purpose of art is to foster debate + Edifice fosters debate --> Edifice qualifies as art

(If you're confused about how to determine what is the main conclusion, remember to use the "therefore test." Does it make more sense to say:

Meets purpose of art --> Is art

Or:

Is art --> Meets purpose of art?

The former makes more sense!

(A) reverses the logic. We need to know that if it fulfills its purpose/fosters debate, it is art, not the if it is art, it fosters debate.

(B) conflicts with the conclusion.

(C) doesn't link the premises to the conclusion, which is that the edifice qualifies as art.

(E) Should? The councilperson doesn't go that far; she just says it qualifies as art.

Hope this helps!

[smsotolongo]

If the stimulus would have said "the sole purpose of art is to cause debate about what is art" would that then make A correct? Initially i got this wrong but as I review it I see that the stimulus doesn't require to assume that the only thing that can qualify as art is what causes debate among experts.

[mcervantesucb]

For this question, is the first sentence completely ignored? I read the stimulus and assumed the conclusion to be that "the city residents should not oppose the commission's proposed purchase because the edifice does qualify as art." Hence, I chose "C".

In review,
The conclusion was the second sentence and the premise was the last sentence.

[JeremyK686]

Breakdown:
P: Critics aren’t sure if edifice qualifies as art.
P: So, residents are against the city buying the edifice.

P1: The purpose of art is to cause experts to debate.
P2: The piece causes experts debate.
C1: The piece qualifies as art.

Diagram:
Debate → Purpose
Debate → Qualifies
Purpose → Qualifies
Any piece that imparts the purpose of art qualifies as art.

Analysis:
The idea of the edifice ‘qualifying as art’ needs to be associated with the idea of ‘the purpose of art’. A piece that satisfies the purpose of art qualifies as art.

Answer Choices:
(A) If the edifice qualifies as art, then there’s debate among experts. The flow of this logic feels opposite to that of the conclusion. The terms of the conclusion can’t be presented as a starting point when it’s already presented as a destination! Also, the terms ‘nothing qualifies as’ has to do with the implication of ‘ability’: If the edifice doesn’t cause debate among experts, then the edifice can’t/doesn’t qualify as art.

(B) This is about experts being certain and objects not causing debate whereas the argument is concerned with objects causing debate and not necessarily about the possibility of experts being certain about a piece’s art qualification. Nothing about ‘ability’ or ‘possibility’ is mentioned.

(C) The councilperson’s point is that the edifice qualifies as art. It’s a descriptive claim. This answer makes a normative claim. The councilperson’s beliefs have little to no impact on how the residents should feel about the proposal; rather the art critics’ beliefs have that effect.

(D) The councilperson’s point is that the edifice qualifies as art. The edifice causes debate & I know that causing debate is the purpose of art. So, a piece that satisfies the purpose of art must qualify as art.

(E) This answer focuses on a normative statement whereas the councilperson’s argument is focused on a descriptive statement. The nature of the reasoning doesn’t logically match. This won’t help in terms of allowing the logic to flow from evidence to conclusion.

If the stimulus would have said "the sole purpose of art is to cause debate about what is art" would that then make A correct? Initially i got this wrong but as I review it I see that the stimulus doesn't require to assume that the only thing that can qualify as art is what causes debate among experts.

I didn’t necessarily ignore the first premise. The question stem dictates my thinking, and it tells me to focus on finding the unstated premise that would allow the councilperson’s argument to follow logically from its premise to its conclusion.

I got to the answer by way of identifying the unanchored terms: qualifying as art & the purpose of art. But I’m curious about how to reduce the second premise (the purpose of art is to cause experts to debate ideas) into proper logical form.

Students on the message board have it diagrammed as purpose → debate. Knowing that something is ‘the purpose of art’ doesn’t guarantee that that something is ‘causing debate’. The purpose → debate diagram only works if I assume ‘causing a debate’ is art’s only purpose. I don’t think I can make that assumption because the premise asserts that the purpose of art is to debate ideas and that art qualification is one of those ideas. Commonly known, there is more than one purpose of art (i.e the purpose to inspire, to educate, etc). However, a piece that causes a debate on its qualification as ‘art’ amongst art critics guarantees me that the piece is serving art’s purpose. The piece serving art’s purpose doesn’t guarantee me that the piece is causing such debate amongst critics.