Q21 - Tania: A good art critic

[aileenann]

In order for two arguments to disagree about something, they both have to talk about it. Let’s figure out at a generally broad level what each of the authors talks about (my own thoughts in parentheses):

Tania _ good art critic not fair, fairness is only when unbiased, since art is passion, it can’t have good criticism (assumption that good criticism requires fairness)
Monique - art is more than passion, best art critics are passionate about work, but best art critics only do criticism after shedding their biases

This looks like it’s going to be a trickier than usual disagreement question because both authors discuss the same ideas, just in slightly different ways. For this reason, we should pay particular attention to their ultimate assertions as well as the ideas they discuss.

(A) This might initially seem tempting because this is partly how M responds to T, but if we go back and look carefully at T it’s unclear that she thinks art is *only* a passion, merely that she thinks the passion element is important. Saying "art is passion" is not the same as saying "art is only passion."
(B) This seems like a good candidate. T suggests that good art critics are not fair _ all of them. M on the other hand suggests that good art critics shed their biases before doing criticism, so that it can be unbiased. The only thing that makes me a little nervous here is that M doesn’t necessarily say that any critic completely succeeds in escaping the taint of bias. Nonetheless, this is pretty close to the original, so it’s a potential answer.
(C) This statement is a normative one, whereas both the authors are engaging in a descriptive analysis. That is, neither author explicitly speculates as to what art critics *should* do _ they only discuss what good art critics *do* do.
(D) This is something that T seems to take for granted. However, nothing in what M says points to her disagreeing with this presumption either _ she certainly doesn’t do so explicitly, and it’s not a required assumption of her argument either.
(E) Neither author speculates as to what the most important aspect of art criticism is _ they can’t disagree about something that neither of them really thought about.
Thus, by process of elimination we are left with (B). It may not be perfect, but nothing else comes close.

Do you think I’m giving (B) short shrift? What’s your reason for liking (B) better than I do as an answer choice?


#officialexplanation

[PRADEEPCHANDY]

i chose A - because B is qualified with "sometimes"..

T is saying art critic is biased

M is saying art crtic is always biased

A seemed clear and concise


What am i missing here

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Answer choice (A) was definitely the answer the test-writer spent a good deal of time developing, even though it's so simple.

The reason why answer choice (A) couldn't be the point of disagreement is that while Monique would clearly agree with the statement, Tania wouldn't necessarily disagree with it. Tania does say that art is a passion, but never says that art is simply a passion.

Saying that art is simply a passion implies that it is nothing more than a passion. So, while Tania would say that art is a passion, we don't know if she would agree that it is simply a passion.

I hope this helps!

[PRADEEPCHANDY]

thank you ..

[cyruswhittaker]

Can you break down the argument/assumptions for Tania again? I'm still having difficulty linking "good art criticism" to being unbiased.

Thanks

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Sure.

Tania's main conclusion is that a good art critic is not fair in the ordinary sense.

Tania's evidence for this consists of the claim that it is only about things that do not interest one that one can give a truly unbiased opinion and that good criticism of art cannot be separated from emotion.

The good part here is that we do not need to evaluate the logic of Tania's argument. The reason being that we're only asked to find a claim that Tania and Monique would disagree about.

Let me know if you still need help seeing Tania's argument.

[farhadshekib]

I am not sure if I understand this question properly. Will someone please look at my line of reasoning:

Tania:
P: art and emotions cannot be separated.

P: to have an unbiased opinion about a thing--> one must have no interest in that thing.

Contrapositive: (Interest --> biased opinion).

P: Art = passion (interest);

(this triggers the contrapositive above: since art is a passion, or interest, one must have a biased opinion about art).

C: Good art critic = not fair (biased).

Monique:

P1: art is not simply a passion.

Conclusion: best art critics engage passionately with artwork, but their criticism = no bias.

(A) we don't know T's opinion on this matter.

(C) both authors do not describe what art critics "should do"

(D) M does not address what fairness requires, so cannot be correct.

(E) out of scope - "most important...?"

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Hey farhadshekib!

Looks great, nice work!

[farhadshekib]

Hey farhadshekib!

Looks great, nice work!

Thanks for replying, Matt.

[nflamel69]

Hey Matt, can you clarify this for me?

Is definition a bi-conditional relationship? and how would it look like in LR format?

[kcozen]

I'm still having trouble with grasping why B is correct. B.) good art criticism is sometimes unbiased. Don't both Tania and Monique agree with this?

[chunsunb]

But I've thought, in the LSAT world, that "A is B" means that A is equivalent to B.

For example: consider the statement: "A triangle is a polygon with three corners or vertices and three sides or edges which are line segments."

In this statement, "A is B" means that A is equivalent to B, or A<=>B. So it follows that B=>A: "if something is a polygon with three corners or vertices and three sides or edges which are line segments, then it is a triangle."

Rephrased: a triangle is simply a polygon with three corners or vertices and three sides or edges which are line segments.


Analogously:

Tania's statement that "art is a passion" means that art is equivalent to passion, or art<=>passion.

It follows that passion=>art: "if something is a passion, it is art."

Rephrased: art is simply a passion.


So Tania would disagree with (A), no?

The gist of my post: is it not always the case that "A is B" means "A is equivalent to B"?

[vishal.reddy1]

I'm still having trouble with grasping why B is correct. B.) good art criticism is sometimes unbiased. Don't both Tania and Monique agree with this?

I believe Tania would disagree with this. The second sentence of Tania's passage is "it is only about things that do not interest one that one can give an unbiased opinion". The last sentence of Tania's passage "since art is a passion, good criticism of art cannot be separated from emotion" suggests that it is impossible for good critics to "not have an interest" (taking from sentence 2) in art, and thus, it would also be impossible for them to "give an unbiased opinion". Definitely threw me for a loop the first 18 times I read it though!

[jeanh93]

So here's my shot. You can say that (B) is correct because Tania refers to all good art critics as biased and unfair (I think most people were able to get this part), while Monique only addresses the best art critics, which inevitably assumes that there are not-so-best or even bad critics who could be biased. Also, I noticed that "good art criticism" is not necessarily the same as "best art critics" so perhaps it's safe to conclude from the dialogue that good art criticism, which can be made by both the good and best art critics, can sometimes be unbiased. Let me know if this reasoning is sound.

[RodrigoA220]

i chose A - because B is qualified with "sometimes"..

T is saying art critic is biased

M is saying art crtic is always biased

A seemed clear and concise


What am i missing here

I know this is an old post, but here's why i reasoned that the 'sometimes' in B doesn't make it wrong. M actually says that 'the best art critics' give critiques that are unbiased. But not all good art criticism has to necessarily come from the 'best art critics', but presumably at least some does. Thus, some good art criticism is unbiased (or good art criticism is sometimes unbiased, like phrased in B)

[ohthatpatrick]

Any time you're doing these "how do they disagree" questions, read both people's statements, and then ask yourself which of the 1st person's claims the 2nd person is arguing against.

Is M saying,
"A good art critic IS fair in the ordinary sense"?
"You CAN give an unbiased opinion, even if you're interested in something?"
"Art is NOT a passion"?
or
"Good criticism CAN be separated from emotion?"

M seems to be arguing that "good criticism CAN be separated from emotion, and that you CAN shed all your biases, even if you're interested in something".

Because Tania used conditional language like "only", she is committed to believing that "if you're interested in the topic, you can NEVER give an unbiased opinion."

So the weak quantifier of "sometimes" in (B) would still be enough to contradict what Tania claimed.

[mswang7]

So if A did not have "simply" in it would it be the correct answer?

[smiller]

Apologies for our slow response. A few questions slipped by us recently.

Removing the word "simply" from choice (A) would not necessarily make it a correct answer. Tania would disagree with that statement. She states that art is a passion. But It's likely that Monique would also disagree. Monique states that art is not simply a passion. That's not the same as stating that art isn't a passion at all. So, removing "simply" from choice (A) would give us a statement that they might both disagree with. It would not be a statement that one agrees with and the other disagrees with.

[AnnT606]

Answer choice (A) was definitely the answer the test-writer spent a good deal of time developing, even though it's so simple.

The reason why answer choice (A) couldn't be the point of disagreement is that while Monique would clearly disagree with the statement, Tania wouldn't necessarily agree with it. Tania does say that art is a passion, but never says that art is simply a passion.

Saying that art is simply a passion implies that it is nothing more than a passion. So, while Tania would say that art is a passion, should not say that it is simply a passion.

I hope this helps!

I chose the correct answer (B), but I wanted to review, as this question seemed to trip me up and take longer than it should have.
However, reading the above explanation supremely confuses me. What am I missing? PLEASE HELP!
My understanding was quite the opposite. To me, Monique would 100% agree with answer (A) since it is word-for-word exactly what she said. As for Tania, we don't know, therefore (A) is wrong.
What am I missing? Why do you say that Monique would clearly disagree with the statement (A) "art is not simply a passion" when that is the same as her exact words?
Is it too late? Is my brain too fried? What am I not seeing? I just don't understand the logic as to why Monique would disagree with (A) and am now more confused.

[Misti Duvall]

Hi Ann! Reading the language you quoted, I think there was maybe a mixup in that explanation. You're right that Monique would agree with answer choice (A), and we don't know whether Tania would agree or disagree.

Thanks for catching. We'll fix it.