Q24 - Andy Warhol's Brillo Boxes is a stack

[Laura Damone]

Question Type:
Procedure

Stimulus Breakdown:
Conclusion: It is not true that appearance alone entirely determines whether or not something is considered a work of art. Premise: Andy Warhol's Brillo Boxes is a stack of boxes that are virtually indistinguishable from the packaging of actual brillo pads stacked on one another. Brillo Boxes is considered a work of art, but an actual stack of brillo pad boxes wouldn't be.

Answer Anticipation:
Procedure question arguments often exhibit one of the common forms of valid reasoning, and this is no exception. This argument uses a specific case as evidence for a general principle.

Correct answer:
E

Answer choice analysis:
(A) Abstract answers beg to have concrete language inserted to replace the abstract stuff. So, what would replace "things that are believed to have a certain property and things that actually have that property?" Well, Brillo Boxes is believed to have the property of being art, but we never discuss something that actually is art and how it differs from the thing believed to be art. So, this one is wrong.

(B) "Ambiguity" on the LSAT means only one thing: a word that can have two meanings. There's no such word in this argument, so B is wrong.

(C) That's the opposite of what we do in this argument!

(D) We don't question any assumptions in this argument: we just present some facts.

(E) This is it, but boy is it a hard one to pick. First, replace the abstract language. "Showing something" must be the facts we present: Brillo Boxes looks just like a stack of actual brillo pad boxes, but it's considered art and the actual stack wouldn't be. "That would be impossible if a particular thesis were correct" must refer to the thesis the argument refutes: appearance alone entirely determines whether or not something is considered art. So, would those facts be impossible if that thesis were true? Yep. That makes this one correct.

Takeaway/Pattern:
Sometimes questions are hard because the stimulus is hard to untangle. Other times, questions are hard because the answer choices are hard to untangle. This one falls into the latter category. Many Procedure questions test whether you understand when an example is used to support a general principle. This one appears to be doing that, but has a right answer that is much much trickier. Stay flexible with your prephrase, and untangle abstract answers by replacing the abstract language with concrete language from the stimulus.

#officialexplanation

[JayM60]

so how I translated option A in relation to the question was thus:

Highlighting the difference between things (Brillo boxes) that are believed to have a certain property (~Art) and things (Product packaging) that have that property (~Art)

I see that option E is a closer match, but am i fundamentally wrong in assuming (in terms of the LSAT) that the absence of a type of quality is by itself a positive property? That is, is (~Art) not a "property" of an object? This runs counter to our natural intuitions since ~Alive is also a property, that is, dead. ~Exist is also a property, that is, lack of existence, etc. On the LSAT, What is the usual ontological status of objects that are negated?(