Q16 - There are already more great artworks

[ohthatpatrick]

What does the Question Stem tell us?
Flaw

Break down the Stimulus:
Conclusion: Contemporary artists are NOT enabling many people to feel more aesthetically fulfilled than they otherwise could.
Evidence: There already exists so much great art that you could never see it all, and it's art that could satisfy virtually any taste.

Any prephrase?
Debating the conclusion forces us to think through the lens of "How could I argue that contemporary artists ARE bringing something needed into the world?" The only wiggle room I iniitally see is that existing art would satisfy VIRTUALLY ANY taste. That claim acknowledges that SOME tastes would not be served by existing great art. Maybe those unaccounted for tastes are very modern and very prevalent? Ultimately, I would just make my mantra, "I weaken this author by arguing that contemporary artists DO fulfill a need".

Correct answer:
D

Answer choice analysis:
A) The author does NOT overlook this possibility. The author explicitly states that all contemporary artists DO believe they're needed. This is a weird answer because it's basically saying, "The author overlooks [an idea that would contradict a premise]." You don't see a lot of those. But remember --- the game we're playing is to judge the REASONING. We accept the evidence and only debate THE MOVE to the conclusion.

B) Does the author assume this? No. Too specific - "Most". Wouldn't make a difference to this author whether 49% or 51% of humans took time to appreciate great art.

C) Does the author assume this? No. This conclusion isn't about "the value" of art. But if it were, the author would be assuming "the value of artwork depends on whether people could have gotten the same fix otherwise".

D) Would this weaken? Yes. This gives us a way to argue that "some contemporary art IS needed". Just because there is a surplus of great art "in the world" doesn't mean that everyone in the world has sufficient access to this great art. Thus, contemporary artists could be serving a need by providing aesthetic fulfillment to an underserved population who wouldn't otherwise have access to enough great art.

E) Does the author assume this? Soooo tempting but no. It looks like a bridge idea, because the premise is talking about the number and variety of great artworks in the world, and the conclusion is talking about people deriving aesthetic fulfillment from contemporary art. But the author is not arguing about the AMOUNT of aesthetic fulfillment derived from contemporary art. The author is arguing about the NECESSITY of aesthetic fulfillment derived from contemporary art. The truth value of the conclusion doesn't hinge on whether people enjoy contemporary art; it hinges on whether they could get just as much enjoyment from the existing pool of art. We could say the author assumes that "the number and variety of great art in the world affects the extent to which society benefits from contemporary art."

Takeaway/Pattern: Tough question. The overall reasoning pattern is similar to an argument they've used about water supply. Essentially: "The global water supply is more than enough to satify us. Thus, fears of water wars are overblown." The correct answer: fails to consider that there may be pockets of water-scarce areas, even though the world's supply is ample. This is essentially the same argument archetype: the world has enough, so don't worry about scarcity. And the answer is pointing out whole to part error of assuming that global supply = local supply.

#officialexplanation

[mageeders]

Could a generous, knowledgeable soul provide an explanation for this question? I narrowed my choices to D & E. I really liked D, but felt like it wasn't as... perhaps "universal" (?) as E was. Some light-shining would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance!

[seychelles1718]

If this question were a Necessary Assumption Q, is the "contemporary artists" a "rogue" or new element that only appears in the conclusion? Or is the last sentence a combination of both premise and conclusion, which means "contemporary artists" is not really a new term?

[ohthatpatrick]

Well, first of all, Flaw sort of IS a Necessary Assumption question.

Choices (B), (C), and (E) on this question are each asking us, "Was THIS a Necessary Assumption?"

Choices (A) and (D) are asking us, "If this is true, would it Weaken?"

You are correct that the final sentence actually packages in a fact AND a claim, so we couldn't call contemp artists a New Guy in the conclusion.

We could say we have
p1: Contemp Artists all believe that their work adds aesthetic value to many people's lives
yet
p2: There's already more than enough great art in the world
thus
c: CA's are wrong: their work does NOT add aesthetic value to many people's lives

The missing bridge really becomes
"If there's already more than enough great art in the world, does that mean that contemporary artists couldn't add aesthetic value to many people's lives?"

[GraceF704]

I think the problem here is"capable of doing something "doesn't mean you actually did something. Artworks in the world can satisfy virtually any taste imaginable doesn't equal to artworks having already satisfying those tastes.(for example, in real life, a car repair store far away in Paris or somewhere can mend your terribly broken old car, but unless you actuallly send a your car there, that repair factory did not literally repair your car.) here the argument takes it wrong. People may be restricted by their access so the artworks in the world cannot fulfill their taste.

[ZarkaS555]

I am still really confused by why E is incorrect. I agree that D is the better answer but I can't exactly pinpoint why E is 100% wrong.

[LilyY418]

I am still really confused by why E is incorrect. I agree that D is the better answer but I can't exactly pinpoint why E is 100% wrong.

I'm not sure if this will help you but, the reason I chose (E) is because of the way I use "the amount".

For example, if I said: "my knee injury will affect THE AMOUNT I run", what I actually mean is: "I WON'T be able to run because of my knee injury".
IOW I don't always use "the amount" to refer to a quantity, sometimes I use it to mean "whether or not" - a binary 'yes/no'

So I thought (E) meant: 'the author is assuming the amount of great artwork affects WHETHER OR NOT people are able to derive fulfillment from contemporary art'