Q17 - : Abstract paintings are..

[nzheng]

I was down to choices A and D, and chose A instead of D. why is it not A because it's not strong enough? thanks

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

The argument can be broken down into two pieces of evidence and a conclusion.

Evidence
1. Abstract paintings are nonrepresentational.
2. For a painting to spur the viewer to political action, instances of social injustice must be represented.

Conclusion
Abstract paintings can never be a politically significant art form.

Put into formal notation
The part in bold is the part given, the part in italics is the assumption.

AP --> ~R
SPA --> R
PS --> SPA
========
AP --> ~PS

Notation Key: AP = Abstract Paintings; R - represented; SPA - Spurt to Political Action; PS - politically significant

Taking the contrapositive of the last two statements will make this easier to see.

AP --> ~R
~R --> ~SPA
~SPA --> ~PS
========
AP --> ~PS

The assumption is ~SPA --> ~PS

Put into English. If something fails to spur to political action, then that thing is not politically significant - best stated in answer choice (D).

(A) represents a possible inference of the two premises offered in support of the conclusion, but does not represent the gap within the argument.
(B) discusses peoples actions as opposed to paintings and is therefore irrelevant.
(C) is close but a little off topic. It's not that the art needs to prompt people to counter social injustice, but rather that the art needs to prompt one to take political action. These two things are not necessarily the same, so the assumption is not necessary to the argument.
(D) is correct and fills the gap in the argument.
(E) is a misinterpretation of information we know to be true. We know that the interplay of color, texture, and form is a measure of worth of nonrepresentational art, but that doesn't mean that they are not measures of representational art.

[jamiejames]

when you're writing out the notations, how do you know not to include "only measure of their worth is interplay of color, texture, and form" and "also clearly comprehensible?"

[ban2110]

I am having some trouble turning choice (D) into a conditional statement. When I first did the question I thought of the diagram in this way: "If you fail to move a a viewer to PA then it cannot be politically significant" =
~MPA --> ~PS

How would I know which part of the phrase is the sufficient and which is the necessary condition?

Thank you very much for the thorough explanation!!

[xingdavid]

Would answer choice A be a sufficient condition?

If abstract painting cannot spur people to act (in any way), then it certainly can't spur people to political action. Therefore, abstract painting is not a politically significant form of art.

Does that make sense?

[timmydoeslsat]

Would answer choice A be a sufficient condition?

If abstract painting cannot spur people to act (in any way), then it certainly can't spur people to political action. Therefore, abstract painting is not a politically significant form of art.

Does that make sense?

It would not be a sufficient assumption due to us being unsure how politically significant form of art plays into all of this. We already have the guarantee of abstract art not being able to spur people to political action. The problem is that we do not know what this lack of political action has to do with a politically significant form of art.

We need something to tie those ends together.

[shaynfernandez]

General question.

When we see an argument that seemingly wants to be connected and linked as this one does, does the assumption more fill the role of a sufficient assumption opposed to necessary?

I feel like the answer could, and more necessarily, be much smaller by reading "some paintings that fail to move a views are not considered politically significant"

It seems like this answer choice is more sufficient than necessary because it is linked to prove the conclusion, though the negation would undermine the argument. I would just like some further explanation on necessary assumption questions that want to link and how to look at the strengthen of the answer choices.

Thanks

[timmydoeslsat]

Great question. You are really asking about the following construction, if I understand you correctly.

AP ---> ~PA
__________
AP ---> ~PS

This is the true problem of this argument. We know that AP cannot be PA. We conclude that AP cannot be PS.

It is necessary for this argument, as you have said, to state that some ~PA are ~PS.

However, just because that tiny some statement is necessary as well does not rule out the entire chain from being necessary too. The arguer has reasoned from a situation of ~PA to believing that we have ~PS. A conditional linkage is a must here.

I do like to follow Matt Sherman's general rule of thumb. When you see a conditional like stimulus, such as the one above, you can expect the necessary assumption to link the argument to unified state. Always look for the softest way to express this missing link.

[timsportschuetz]

Answer choice breakdown for people taking the Manhattan method to heart:
A: "people to act". Act what? Eliminate!
B: "their political activity is insignificant" the argument talks about the art form being politically significant! Eliminate!
C: "only art" we are specifically talking about paintings! What about statues and comic books? Secondly, "prompts people to counter social injustice" is a complete equivocation of the original argument! Read Closely!
E: We do not know anything about representational paintings! Argument only says that non-representational paintings have only the three measures for their worth: color, texture, and form. This doesn't mean that representational paintings DOES NOT have those measures!