by tommywallach Mon Feb 11, 2013 12:25 am
Hey Guys,
Great explanation from a3 here, but I thought I'd do my own little review. : )
Shanna: If you own a work of art, you should be able to destroy it.
Jorge: Art is different; it must be preserved no matter what it's owner wants
We're trying to defend Shanna here...
(A) If anything, this goes against her position, because then there would never be a need to destroy a work of art. However, she'd still have her inconvenience argument, so this doesn't really help or hurt her argument.
(B) This is Jorge's defense, not Shanna's!
(C) This would also be Jorge's defense!
(D) This would be Jorge's again (if it's not possible to own something, then Shanna's point is moot, because you couldn't have the right to destroy it).
(E) This helps Shanna, because it's a defense of any autonomous action that doesn't directly hurt someone; destroying a work of art does not directly hurt someone.
Hope that helps! Make sure on a question like this, your first efforts are figuring out which answer choices relate to which person!
-t