Q10 - Art historian: Great works

[LSAT-Chang]

Hello!
I struggled with this question pretty bad. Even after spending 3 minutes on it, I didn't seem to get the question in general.

So here is the core that I thought of:

It is clear that art is often shocking, therefore, we should not hesitate to use public funds to support works of art that many people find shocking.

I didn't even know if the first sentence was an important part of the core, so I just eliminated it -- but looking at the answer choices -- I kept going back to the argument and not the core itself, trying to figure it out. Looking just at the core.. the author seems to be assuming something along the lines of if an art is shocking, then we should use public funds to support it. But that is basically what the author said, so I really didn't see what the "unstated" assumption was.

The correct answer for this was (D).. why is this an unstated assumption? I think it is so clearly stated when the author basically says (what I said above): art is shocking, therefore, we should use public funds to support works of art that people find shocking! it literally says that we SHOULD USE public funds to support works of ART! (D) is just a rephrase of this that public funds should support art... I am so confused. Please help!

[timmydoeslsat]

This one is a classic example of easy problems that can be seen as difficult through just language.

The conclusion of "Should not hesitate to use public funds to support works of art that many people find shocking" is not equivalent or a restatement of "Public funds should support art."

Take an analogous situation:

"We should not hesitate to stand in somebody's yard to wait in line for the ice cream truck."

A necessary assumption in that statement is that "Somebody's yard should be used to wait for something."

The shoulds in these statements represent different ideas. The first should is slightly presumptive in saying that we should not hesitate to do an action. The author is assuming that we should do the action in the first place!

[bigtree65]

You make a very good point but I am still very confused and would greatly appreciate if you could explain some more things to me.

I was struggling between A and E and didn't even think about D.

Since were told that art is often shocking, I was having trouble fitting "often" into the grand scheme of this question. What does often mean? On the LSAT should it be interpreted as most or sometimes?

And the reason I ended up going with E is because according to the negation rule it destroys the argument no? If anything that shocks is not art then art cannot often be shocking. Wouldn't this completely undermine the argument?

Any help on this would be greatly appreciated

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Let me offer some tips on the meaning of some critical words:

Some
--------------
many, several, a few, a large amount, a large proportion, not all (which implies "some are not"), often, regularly, frequently, and occasionally

Most
--------------
most, more than half, a majority, nearly all, almost all, few (which implies "most are not"), generally, typically, and usually

While I'm certain that I've left off a few key words, I'm sure this will round out most of what you need.

And the reason I ended up going with E is because according to the negation rule it destroys the argument no? If anything that shocks is not art then art cannot often be shocking. Wouldn't this completely undermine the argument?

The problem here is that such is not the correct negation of answer choice (E). The correct way to negate an "all statement" is by saying "not all."

So the negation of "every store keeper is tidy," would be "not every store keeper is tidy," or through interpretation, "some store keepers are not tidy."

The negation of answer choice (E) should be, "some things that shock are not art." And this would not destroy the argument.

For this one, the biggest indication of the correct answer is the fact that the conclusion is a normative claim (think opinion about what "should" happen) as Timmy pointed out. Notice that the evidence is about statements of fact, whereas the conclusion is about what "ought" to be the case.

The assumption should tie in that prescriptive conclusion and the only one that brings in such language is answer choice (D) with public funds "should" support art.

Hope that helps, and let me know if you have further questions on this one!

[goriano]

Let me offer some tips on the meaning of some critical words:

Some
--------------
many, several, a few, a large amount, a large proportion, not all (which implies "some are not"), often, regularly, frequently, and occasionally

Most
--------------
most, more than half, a majority, nearly all, almost all, few (which implies "most are not"), generally, typically, and usually

While I'm certain that I've left off a few key words, I'm sure this will round out most of what you need.

And the reason I ended up going with E is because according to the negation rule it destroys the argument no? If anything that shocks is not art then art cannot often be shocking. Wouldn't this completely undermine the argument?

The problem here is that such is not the correct negation of answer choice (E). The correct way to negate an "all statement" is by saying "not all."

So the negation of "every store keeper is tidy," would be "not every store keeper is tidy," or through interpretation, "some store keepers are not tidy."

The negation of answer choice (E) should be, "some things that shock are not art." And this would not destroy the argument.

For this one, the biggest indication of the correct answer is the fact that the conclusion is a normative claim (think opinion about what "should" happen) as Timmy pointed out. Notice that the evidence is about statements of fact, whereas the conclusion is about what "ought" to be the case.

The assumption should tie in that prescriptive conclusion and the only one that brings in such language is answer choice (D) with public funds "should" support art.

Hope that helps, and let me know if you have further questions on this one!

I knew that the correct answer choice needed to include "public funding" because that idea shows up only in the conclusion. So it was immediately between (B) and (D). However, I was turned off by (D) because it seemed like a sufficient assumption (Public funds should support ART IN GENERAL), whereas the conclusion was limited to ART that people find SHOCKING (and the question asks for a necessary assumption). And so under the time pressure I chose (B) instead. Any advice on how to avoid such a mistake in the future?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

The easiest way to avoid answer choice (B) in the future is to make sure that you're clearly identifying the argument core. Stravinsky and Manet actually are not part of this argument. They're context before the argument begins.

Evidence: Art is often shocking.

Conclusion: We should not hesitate to use public funds to support works of art that many people find shocking.

Since answer choice (B) is addressing an issue outside the scope of the argument (Stravinsky and Manet), there's no need to make that assumption.

The question stem asks for an assumption required for the conclusion to be properly drawn. If we were to negate answer choice (D) and say that "public funds should not always be used to support art," the conclusion about not hesitating to use public funds could not be properly drawn. And so answer choice (D) is required for the conclusion to in fact be properly drawn.

Hope that helps!

[m28010000]

There are some art fairs that are keeping the art forms alive otherwise most of the people don't even show their interest in these art forms that are running from so many years. I think supporting an art form is not bad in that situation.

[sujin91]

Hello,

I was just wondering if B would work as a strengthener or justify the conclusion question?

Your reply would be appreciated!

Thanks,

Sujin

[foralexpark]

Hello,

I was just wondering if B would work as a strengthener or justify the conclusion question?

Your reply would be appreciated!

Thanks,

Sujin

Yes and No.
It would work as strengthener... although I would say only a little bit. because it shows that shocking arts DO receive public funding.. therefore, arts that DO shock CAN get public funding

on the other hand, it wouldn't do a single thing to justify the conclusion, since it is based on only few samples.. even if the sample was larger, it still wouldn't justify the conclusion...

[jm.kahn]

The easiest way to avoid answer choice (B) in the future is to make sure that you're clearly identifying the argument core. Stravinsky and Manet actually are not part of this argument. They're context before the argument begins.

Evidence: Art is often shocking.

Conclusion: We should not hesitate to use public funds to support works of art that many people find shocking.

Since answer choice (B) is addressing an issue outside the scope of the argument (Stravinsky and Manet), there's no need to make that assumption.

The question stem asks for an assumption required for the conclusion to be properly drawn. If we were to negate answer choice (D) and say that "public funds should not always be used to support art," the conclusion about not hesitating to use public funds could not be properly drawn. And so answer choice (D) is required for the conclusion to in fact be properly drawn.

Hope that helps!

The negation of D doesn't break the argument as public funds could still be used to support art that is shocking but not used to support art that is not shocking.
Negation of D: public funds sometimes should not be used to support art

If we negate D, we can still have the argument work as long as the public funds are not used to support non-shocking art only. Why then is D necessary?
D looks more like a sufficient assumption and is definitely a strengthener.

If this is seen as an argument of analogy, then B looks like a good choice. If the previous shocking art from Stravinsky and Manet received public funding them, then the generalized conclusion that we shouldn't hesitate to use public funding to support shocking art makes sense. Why is this not an argument of analogy?

[rezaul_nsu]

You know to attack an assumption question you have to take either defender role or supporter role. Here, supporter role is applicable since there is a sudden new information in the conclusion, which is 'public fund'. so, this new information needs to be attached to the premises to make the argument better coherent. Only the option B and D try to address this need. The answer choice B is even more attractive than D, though it is incorrect. Why? because assumption is regarded as essential , though unstated, in order for the conclusion or argument valid. Here, the information in the option B is nonessential. Without this information, still, the conclusion valid. In other words, the purpose of that two examples is to show just whether outrage/shocking occurs or not. The purpose is successful whether you assume they get support of public fund or not.
The option D is here correct option. 'We should not hesitate to use public fund' is not just restatement of 'public fund should support art'. Why? because the later statement is more unambiguous. The first statement is a bit cloudy since we means who? government or people in general?...What if the country is not democratic; can it be said 'we should not hesitate to use public fund'? Only the government can tell this, not general people.

[Dtodaizzle]

I am having trouble eliminating answer choice A. If most art is shocking, then the negation is "No art is shocking." If no art is shocking, then why should we use public funds to support works of art that are shocking?

[maryadkins]

Careful about a couple of things here.

1. The negation of "Most art is shocking" is not "No art is shocking." It's that not most art is shocking. In other words, 49% of art can still be shocking.

2. This negated statement still jives with the premise that art is often shocking. Your negated statement would have violated this premise, which is not allowed...we always take premises as true on the LSAT! We aren't allowed to debunk them! A correct answer choice to a necessary assumption question WILL violate the argument in a critical way once the answer choice is negated, but it has to violate the ASSUMPTION in the argument, which is unstated. It cannot violate a statement/premise.

[LizaK873]

Struggled with this. "public funds should support art" was so problematic for me. I crossed out D.
I at first agreed with the above poster: the necessary should be "public funds should support something that produces something great", or "some art".
But this is an explicitly logical assumption question in a published LSAT, so I must find a way for the answer to be absolutely true (aka, I must be absolutely wrong...), and all else absolutely false.


-----why D is absolutely true, using an analogy (square bracket is the conclusion)
Great art is often shocking; So since art is often shocking, [public funds should support shocking art]
Water from John is often clean. So since water is often clean, [my dog should drink clean water] (conclusion)

Now it's extremely clear which it requires:
- my dog should drink water ---- if my dog doesn't need to drink water to survive, "my dog should drink clean water" completely falls
- my dog should drink something from John --- even if my dog doesn't need to drink something from John, "my dog should drink clean water" is still possible to be true

The 'drink water' is valid here, because it doesn't at all imply my dog should drink ALL the water in the world, only that it SHOULD.

Art is the same.
Public funds should support art was not equivalent to public funds should support ALL art, but rather, only that they should. It can choose what to support.
And, my initial thought of 'public funds should not support something great' (aka negated is treu), still allows conclusion of "public funds should support shocking art" to be true.


----why D is absolutely true, using assumption techniques:

1. Question phrase "required" == necessary assumption

2. The chain: sufficient assumption -> conclusion true -> necessary assumption

3. To identify NA, if NA is negated, conclusion cannot be true (& of course, if conclusion is true, NA must be true).
-> "public funds should not support art" --> public funds shouldn't support art that is shocking either, since shocking art is still art
-> if conclusion is true, the NA follows as true --> public funds should support shocking art --> public funds should support art

an analogy of this is:
- Mary should wear a fancy hat implies Mary should wear a hat (doesn't specify which hat, nor all hats)
another analogy:
- I should run tomorrow --> I should exercise (doesn't specify exactly which exercise, nor all exercises)
so:
- Mary should date kind men (conclusion) --> Mary should date men (NA)
If the above sounds weird, consider this:
- Mary should date kind people (SA) --> So, Mary should date kind men (conclusion) --> Mary should date men (NA)
[Mary should date kind people] can only imply [Mary should date kind men] if the following is required: [Mary should date men]

---why all other choices were absolutely false (aka, even if negated, conclusion can be true (doesn't have to be all the time):
A) 1. "most" is incorrect, because often =/= most, and 2. conclusion does not mention public funds should support [most art] or [all art], but rather, [shocking art].
B) 1. conclusion is future tense, so past examples have nothing to prove the future: [M + S didn't get funding] can coexist with [public funds should support shocking art], hence not required
C) even if art is less shocking, as long as it is shocking, conclusion can be true
E) This is easy to eliminate, as it's absurd. [Most of A is B] =/= [all of B is A]. So, most of art is shocking =/= all shocking is art. As in, it can't be true, even if we never read the question. Shocking thunder, or shocking car honks isn't art.
But as for why its wrong for the question anyway: does everything shocking need to be art for public funding to support shocking art? No.
Public funding doesn't have to support [shocking car honks] , for [support shocking art] to be true.