Q18 - Not all works of art

[jjunderwood42]

Struggling to find a conditional that leads me to the right answer.
Any help greatly appreciated.

[giladedelman]

Thanks for your question. I think the reason you're struggling with this one is because it's not a problem that conditional logic is particularly relevant in solving; most of the statements made in the argument cannot be represented as conditional statements.

So let's look for the core. The conclusion is that there can be no objective criteria for determining whether an object is art. This conclusion is based on the premise that there are no such criteria for identifying context-dependent properties such as representation, which we're told is aesthetically relevant.

In other words, because there's no way to objectively judge whether something is representational, there can be no way to judge whether it is a work of art.

Does that raise any red flags? The argument says that representation is aesthetically relevant. Does that mean it's the only property whose presence determines whether an object is a work of art? No! Couldn't there be other properties, ones that we can judge objectively, that could tell us whether something is a work of art or not?

(C) is correct. The author assumes that representation is the only relevant property. If other properties can determine whether something is a work of art, then the assumption is negated, and the conclusion -- that there cannot be any clear criteria for determining whether something is art -- doesn't hold up.

(A) is out of scope. The argument is about whether something is art, not our aesthetic experiences.

(B) is out of scope. What does this tell us about judging whether something is a work of art or not?

(D) is out of scope. We don't care about aesthetically irrelevant properties.

(E) actually runs against the argument. We're told that representation is aesthetically relevant -- period. One of the argument's assumptions is that aesthetic relevance qualifies something as art. So the author would disagree with this statement.

Does that clear this one up for you at all?

[jjunderwood42]

Great explanation, thanks!

[m28010000]

All I got to see here is the art of representation for specifying it as an art work. The explanation was really meaningful and clearly mentioned what is actually needed.

[foralexpark]

I think the answer is clearly stated in the first sentence:

"NOT ALL works of art represent something, but some do,..."

so some arts do not represent something, and therefore, as (C) states, there are OTHER properties other than representation that can determine whether an object is a work of art

[cyt5015]

Why we don't need to care aesthetically irrelevant properties? To eliminate answer D, are you assuming art must have some aesthetic properties? what if those aesthetic irrelevant properties become the criteria for determining whether an object qualifies as art?
Please help, thank you.

[WaltGrace1983]

Why we don't need to care aesthetically irrelevant properties? To eliminate answer D, are you assuming art must have some aesthetic properties? what if those aesthetic irrelevant properties become the criteria for determining whether an object qualifies as art?
Please help, thank you.

This is a flaw question. However, this is not just ANY flaw question. In other words, it is not simply asking something like, "which one of the following highlights the error in the author's reasoning?" Instead, it is saying that the question "fails to exclude the possibility that..."

Thus, the correct answer will highlight something that both (1) the author neglected and (2) is very relevant to evaluating the reasoning.

(D) is wrong. First of all, (D) includes the word "some." This is not a good reason to eliminate an answer choice but it is a good reason to be hesitant about it. "Some" is very weak, much weaker than what we would probably want in most questions. However, the real kicker is that (D) claims something that doesn't really have a lot of basis: "Some works of art may have properties that aren't relevant to our aesthetic experience." All we know is that "representation is an aesthetically relevant property" and some works of art have it. This does not mean that the author is discounting everything else, claiming that EVERY work of art has something relevant. This overshoots what the author is saying.

(C) gets at the flaw. The author says that we cannot determine if the criteria for "representation." Thus, we cannot determine the criteria for whether or not something is a work of art. But wait a minute. What if there are a million different other ways of determining if something is art? (C) points out this gap in reasoning.

[cyt5015]

Thank Waltgrace1983 to answer my question but I'm still confused even if I tried your reasoning to eliminate the answer D, because I can use the same reason you give to eliminate answer C as well: stimulus only talks about representation which is an aesthetically relevant property and does not mention properties other than representation. I can also add "some" before answer C which won't affect its correctness either.
Please help again.

Oh, wait a second. Answer C mentioned "can determine whether an object is a work of art" but answer D says nothing about whether the aesthetic-irrelevant properties can or can not determine the qualification as art. Therefore, we have to assume they do, which is unwarranted. Is it a way to eliminate answer D?
Thank you.

[WaltGrace1983]

Thank Waltgrace1983 to answer my question but I'm still confused even if I tried your reasoning to eliminate the answer D, because I can use the same reason you give to eliminate answer C as well: stimulus only talks about representation which is an aesthetically relevant property and does not mention properties other than representation. I can also add "some" before answer C which won't affect its correctness either.
Please help again.

Oh, wait a second. Answer C mentioned "can determine whether an object is a work of art" but answer D says nothing about whether the aesthetic-irrelevant properties can or can not determine the qualification as art. Therefore, we have to assume they do, which is unwarranted. Is it a way to eliminate answer D?
Thank you.

I think you got it!

[daijob]

So confused by this question.
Do we ignore all background info that is not premise and conclusion?
When I first read the conclusion and premise of this question, I thought it denies what it says in the background info.
Some art represent smt and it relates to aesthetic experience.
Whether it has the skill depending on context.
...But there is no criteria to determine whether context exists, so no criteria for determine smt as art.
So no criteria, no art now...but doesn't this contradict what it says in..."...some do, and their doing so is relevant to our aesthetic experience"??
What did I miss here??

Thank you,

[logicfiend]

It's a little hard to follow what you're saying, but I wouldn't say there's much in this stimulus that is "background." They're all premises and they're all relevant. As the question stem says, this flaw is a classic "I'm missing crucial information I need to make a conclusion."

Here is the argument core, you can see how each premise is leading to the conclusion.

Premise: Some artworks have elements that are relevant to our aesthetic experience of them, meaning what we see.

Premise: To determine if an artwork has these elements, it depends on context.

Premise: But there's no criteria for determining if an artwork has context.

Conclusion: Therefore, there cannot be any clear criteria for determining if something qualifies as art.

Doesn't this conclusion seem a little extreme for the premises? All we know is that one property that helps qualify something as art may not have clear criteria. But this doesn't mean there cannot be other properties that give us a more definitive answer.

Here is an analogous argument:

The color (Aesthetic Property) is one way to determine whether this is a ripe avocado. To determine if this has the right color (Aesthetic Property), we must first determine if there is any bruising on the skin (Context Dependent properties). But there is no criteria to determine the amount of bruising (Context dependent properties). Therefore, there is no way to determine whether an avocado is ripe.

Again, the conclusion is too extreme for the premises that are given.

Color is ONE way to determine whether an avocado is ripe.

The outward appearance of the skin is ONE way to determine whether an avocado is ripe.

Just because one of these cannot be determined, does not mean we can't determine whether the avocado is ripe in general. There are other ways! Just like there are other ways to determine whether something qualifies as art. Hope this helps clear up this question.

[daijob]

Thanks, it makes a sense now...I think I was confused with the first sentence.

[mkd000]

Please correct me if I'm wrong. It is of my opinion that (D) is incorrect because it is not the case that the argument fails to exclude the possibility that some works of art might have properties that aren't relevant to aesthetic experiences. I think the first sentence allows for this possibility when it says "not all works" rep something. So, the argument allows the possibility of art having other properties. I think this answer choice is playing on the use of ambiguous term "this" when referring to "property" in the second sentence.

I'd love feedback. Thanks

[ohthatpatrick]

When you say “it’s NOT the case that argument FAILS to exclude the possibility”, it’s a double negative.

So you’re arguing that this author “DOES exclude the possibility” of (D)?

This author told us that art can ONLY have properties that are relevant to our aesthetic experience of them?

I don’t think this is really what you meant. I think you just got confused with the wording of the question stem. Because it’s a Flaw question, you’re probably hearing “he failed to CONSIDER”, and it sounds like you’re arguing “but he DID consider this! He allowed for this possibility”.

But, again, it’s not asking whether he failed to consider something. It’s asking whether he failed to exclude something.

So you agree, I think, that the author RECOGNIZES the possibility of (D).The author does not EXCLUDE the possibility of (D).

So you can’t knock off (D) for that reason. We all agree the author allows for the possibility that art may have some non-aesthetic properties as well. (he fails to exclude it)

The reason (D) is wrong is because, “So what?”

The only thing that matters to these answer choices is “CAN we or can we NOT determine whether an object qualifies as art?”

If we say, “Hey, author, art is allowed to have non-aesthetic properties.”

Does that help us argue that “we CAN determine whether an object qualifies as art?”

Nope. Not unless we introduce a bunch of other ideas we make up.

Meanwhile, (C) is saying “Hey, author, OTHER properties besides representation can tell you whether something qualifies as art.”

Does that help us argue that “we CAN determine whether an object qualifies as art?”

Totally! It sounds like the opposite of the Conclusion. Perfect!