Q16 - Curator: Since ancient times

[mcrittell]

Had trouble with this assumption question. Let me try and break it down so you can see where I go wrong.

Can someone please break this argument down. I can't clearly see what's going on. I got it down to C and D, but ultimately incorrectly chose C.

[LSAT-Chang]

I would also like some explanation on this problem. I had (B) for this one.. I wasn't exactly sure of the core as well and that is why I wasn't able to eliminate any of the answers and just ended up choosing (B) since I didn't even know what the conclusion was.

Is the argument core:

contemporary societies should fulfill their obligation as stewards of cultural heritage without the assistance of aristocracies or religious institutions therefore governments must help finance the maintenance, advancement, and enrichment of the fine arts today

But I'm not even sure if that's the conclusion. The other conclusion I thought of was: "clearly, contemporary societies should fulfill their obligation as stewards of cultural heritage without the assitance of aristocracies or religious institutions". I don't even know what the argument is trying to say.

Now that I look at it, (E) looks much more attractive (if my core for the first is correct) since the conclusion is about governments needing to help manage the fine arts today and so if we negate (E), then we have that management of the fine arts in any era does NOT require governmental subsidies. Then wouldn't the conclusion break down? Since then governments don't really need to help the management (opposite of conclusion).

[timmydoeslsat]

Clearly will be introducing a subsidiary conclusion in this argument, while the "so governments must help finance..." will be the main conclusion of this argument.


I will attempt to make this a visually appealing core:

PREMISE----------------------SUBSIDIARY CON--------MAIN CON

Doubtful that fine art ---------Clearly, contemp.------------So,
would have survived ----------societies should fulfill their---govts
without subsidies from --------obligation as stewards of----must
aristocracies and religious -----culture heritage without-----help
institutions that were the -----assist from those places-----fin.
public sectors of their day --------------------------------arts


Do you see a big gap between the subsidiary conclusion and the main one?

Just because contemporary societies should fulfill their obligation as stewards of cultural heritage, why does that mean that WE MUST do anything with fine arts?

The argument concludes that contemporary societies should use governments to maintain, advance, and enrich fine arts.

Why?

Because contemporary societies should fulfill obligation of stewards of cultural heritage.

Try negating choice D:

Serving as stewards of cultural heritage does not require that contemporary societies help maintain the fine arts.

That destroys the main conclusion. That destroys the must factor in the main conclusion.

Answer choice E is not necessary because it states any era.

We do not know what will happen in the future. And the argument does not need "any era" to live.

This argument is flawed for not mentioning this necessary assumption, but also in its jump from the premise to the subsidiary conclusion. Just because something would not have survived without funds does not mean that contemporary societies should do anything. We would need a principle to support this normative statement as well.

[bigtree65]

You make a pretty good point and I can see why D is the answer now, but why is C wrong? If we negate it" in contemporary societies, aristocracies and religious institutions are willing to help finance the fine arts", doesn't that tell us that "clearly contemporary societies should fulfill their obligations as stewards of cultural heritage without the assistance of aristocracies or religious institutions" is now wrong and breaks the argument?

[tamwaiman]

You make a pretty good point and I can see why D is the answer now, but why is C wrong? If we negate it" in contemporary societies, aristocracies and religious institutions are willing to help finance the fine arts", doesn't that tell us that "clearly contemporary societies should fulfill their obligations as stewards of cultural heritage without the assistance of aristocracies or religious institutions" is now wrong and breaks the argument?

Because the argument has exempted the assistance of aristocracies or religious institutions, the willingness is not important now.

If we try to translate it into a conditional relation, it would be:

~assistance --> societies should fulfill the obligation

Even the sufficient condition is negated,we cannot infer anything of the societies' attitude.

[maryadkins]

Great discussion here!

Timmydoeslsat is right about the subsidiary conclusion and the gap between it and the final conclusion. Remember you can use the "therefore test" to properly ID the final conclusion. Here, it wouldn't make sense to say:

the gov't should fund fine arts today --> contemporary societies should fulfill their obligation as stewards

Because the argument has exempted the assistance of aristocracies or religious institutions, the willingness is not important now.

Yes! It exempts that possibility by saying "without the help of..." (C) focuses on this, not on the assumption. We've already been told that the conclusion about the government is in societies that don't have the help of aristocracies or religious institutions.

Hope this helps!

[porsupuesto3798]

This is a tricky question. I miss this one as well.
The structure is like this:
Premise --> Sub-conclusion --> Main Conclusion

The assumption lies between premise and sub-conclusion as well as between sub-conclusion and Main conclusion, also between premise and main conclusion.
But most importantly, the gap before the main-conclusion is the most important.
For example, an assumption between the premise and the main conclusion could be: Government is a kind of public sector.


But this is not in the choice.
The sub-conclusion is like this
A should filfill obligation of B
Main conclusion: Therefore, A must do C.

Why? A must do C? Because A should fulfill obligation of B?
Then what is that if you negate choice (C), it doesn't destroy the conclusion at all.
Aristocracies and religious institutions are willing to help, then it does not interfere with the obligation of stewards of cultural heritage, even if you are willing to help, then contemporary societies sill should enforce their obligations.

What about we negate (D),
it sounds like, obligation of B does not necessarily contain C. then why A must do C? so (D) is the assumption.

It's a hard one because the "without" is confusing, but only through enough practice could one identify problems like this quickly.

[acechaowang]

I believe the negation of E is not in any era instead of the one stated previously. please correct me if i am wrong. Thanks!

[WaltGrace1983]

I feel like this question could have gone in a different direction. When I read the core, I read it like this:

Contemporary societies should fulfill their obligation as stewards of cultural heritage without the assistance of aristocracies/religious institutions
→
Governments must help finance the M, A, and E of the fine arts today

Could a correct answer looked something like the following?: "Denying the assistance of aristocracies or religious institutions entails relying upon the government for certain activities."

Or perhaps...

"Without the government's intervention, one cannot fulfill their obligation as stewards of cultural heritage."

What do you guys/girls think?

[ohthatpatrick]

You're definitely right. Instead of attacking the gap between "fulfilling our obligation as stewards of culture" and "maintaining the arts", this question could have attacked the gap between "NOT using aristocracies or religious groups" and "NEEDING to use government".

This is part of what makes the later questions in LR trickier:
- harder to read structures ... Prem -> Subsid Conc -> Main Conc
with multiple points of attack

- the gap you predict might not be the gap they're testing

[jasonleb1]

Is B wrong because churches and aristocracies aren't necessarily the only sources for private support?

[ohthatpatrick]

That's correct. Aristocracies and Religious Institutions "were the public sectors of their day".

And the conclusion is saying the govt. must HELP finance the arts. So the author isn't necessarily saying the govt should take on the whole pursuit on its own.

He's more implying that if the govt did NOT help, the arts would not make it.

Just in terms of formal test-taking suggestions, any answer choice you ever see that takes the form of
"IF [conclusion]" will always be garbage.

We want ideas that lead us -----to----> the Conclusion.

We're not interested in talking about what ELSE would be true IF the Conclusion is true.

[Dylan R236]

Howdy!

@ Mr. OhthatPatrick stated with regard to answer choice B that "Just in terms of formal test-taking suggestions, any answer choice you ever see that takes the form of:

"IF [conclusion]" will always be garbage.

We want ideas that lead us -----to----> the Conclusion."

As I see it, that advice definitely holds true for a sufficient assumption questions seeing that we want an answer that will get us TO the conclusion. However, does that advice really hold for a necessary assumption where the assumption, though necessary, needn't entail the conclusion?

What if answer choice B instead read as: "If contemporary governments help to maintain and enrich the fine arts, aristocratic and religious support for the arts will become unnecesary"

Negated, the answer would read, "if contemporary governments help to maintain and enrich the fine arts, aristocratic and religious support for the arts will becomes necessary," thus undermining one of the premises, the claim about "without the assistance of aristocracies or religious institutions" Is that so? What do ya'll think??

Thanks in advance to anyone who wants to respond!