Q23 - A museum director, in order

[yama_sekander]

i brought this one down to D and E and i ended up picking E. i eliminated D because it states "it bases a firm conclusion about a state of affairs in the PRESENT". in my mindset, i thought that it was a state of affairs in the PAST based on the future state of affairs, so i eliminated D.


my only question with E is that i don't see the causal argument. can someone explain what E is trying to say?

[demetri.blaisdell]

The core of this argument is buried in a relatively lengthy passage. The conclusion is in the last sentence (the critics were right), but it refers back to the third sentence. The conclusion is that the museum lost first-rate pieces of art. What premise is that based on? Again, there's a lot of clutter, but the premise is in the second-to-last sentence: the paintings were resold a few months later for 2 or 3 times the original price (despite a stagnant art market).

paintings resold for a higher price months later --> museum lost first-rate paintings

We'll be looking for a flaw, so can we identify a gap in the above argument? There are a couple of ways to attack the connection between this premise and conclusion. The most obvious one is that the artistic merit of art is not always reflected by its monetary value. People routinely pay huge amounts of money for art that is not "first-rate." Another possibility is that something sensational happened to the artist in those few months. If that artist appeared on the Oprah Winfrey show, the value of her work might have shot through the roof. Does that change the quality of these pieces that she already painted?

(E) is a flaw answer choice that tends to make students nervous by stating the answer in general terms. Stand your ground! The argument presupposes that the quality of the art caused the price to be so high. What about the Oprah effect? (E) says quite simply that something other than quality (first-rateness!) could have caused the art to be resold for a higher price.

(A) is out of scope. There is no mention of how many people feel that the paintings were first-rate and how many do not.

(B) is also not the flaw. The critics are certainly art experts and the argument is actually siding with them (not rejecting their opinion). The argument does reject the opinion of the director (another expert, we hope) but (B) does not compare the opinions of experts who disagree with each other.

(C) What is the proven means of deciding which art is first-rate? The author seems to think that price is the best means to determine quality, but this isn't rejected... nor is it proven, for that matter.

(D) again misses the flaw. The argument is basing a claim about the past (the quality of the art at the time it was sold by the director) on another result in the past (the re-sale of the art a few months later). There are not speculative claims about the future. Those would look like: "the price of this artwork is expected to continue to increase over time." Don't be pushed around by general terms. Match them up to the argument. If you can't find a match, this can't be the flaw.

I hope this helped you understand (E). This is a tricky question. Let me know if you have any questions.

Demetri

[kpopstar123]

Demetri,

I got this question right but was confused by the wording of C.

I believe that this answer choice was tricky but ultimately wasn't the answer because of the word reject.

It says that it "rejects" a means of accomplishing an obj without offering any alternative.

I believe if the word accept replaces the word reject, it would make this an answer:

The argument is flawed because it affirms that the increased in price of art is the sole and necessary criterion to determine whether the critic is right or not.

Thus, C is "opposite" of what we are looking for?

What do you think?

[aznriceboi17]

For C, I understood the 'means of accomplishing an objective' to refer to the director's sale of the paintings (means) to pay for some new acquisitions (objective).

Though I guess E is still better, since the author's argument is that the museum lost first-rate pieces, and not that the museum director could have acquired the pieces in the new expensive acquisitions through other means.

[YajingW401]

I think E is an answer easy to be pre-phrased. Since the price doubled or tripled after the critics’ evaluation, it cannot be excluded that the appreciation in the value came from the influence of the critics’ words
In summary, what is being measured is interfered by the measurer, it cannot say that the measurement is accurate.

[VendelaG465]

I had written the core as they demonstrate the correctness of the critics evaluation ---> these prices settle the issue. I'm having a hard time seeing/understanding how the correct core was "the museum sold artwork that was then resold for much more $--> the museum lost first rate pieces ---> the museum violated its duty as a trustee of art" which is how it was written in the LR strategy guide. i guess the lack of premise/conclusion words is what threw me off. is "thereby" considered a conclusion word?

[ohthatpatrick]

I'm confused by your last statement about a lack of obvious indicator words.

The last sentence is as normal as it gets.
CLEARLY _______ SINCE _______
will always mean that the 1st blank was a Conclusion
and the 2nd was Support for that 1st blank.

The challenge here is just importing the borrowed language from elsewhere.

CONC:
"These prices settle the issue"
Which prices? The high prices people paid for the art that got sold.
Which issue? The issue of whether the museum director should be condemned for having sold them.

So, "The high prices people paid for the art that the MD sold settle the issue of whether the MD should be condemned for having sold them".

Is the author saying the MD should or shouldn't be condemned? Here, the context of the final "since" idea tells us that the author is siding with the critics.

What opinion do the critics/author have?
"MD should be condemned, since they lost first-rate pieces and thereby violated their duty as trustee"

What support do the critics/author have?
The author says that "the prices demonstrate the correctness of the evaluation".

The critics really said three things that would count as an evaluation:
1. MD should be condemned
2. the pieces sold were 'first rate'
3. the MD violated his duty as trustee for future generations

Which one of these is most demonstrated by "prices"?

It seems like #2. It seems like the author is saying:
"BECAUSE the pieces sold for high prices in an otherwise stagnant market
WE CAN CONCLUDE THAT the pieces were indeed first-rate pieces"

Our author doesn't really comment as to whether museum directors really have a duty to be trustee of art for future generations (and the prices that the sold pieces of art went for wouldn't demonstrate the correctness of that evaluation).

Hope this helps.