Q24 - We ought to pay attention

[lichenrachel]

Help! I am totally at lost in this question. By elimination I managed to limit the right answers down to A or C. But I still can't figure out the structure of argument...

Thanks in advance!

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Great question...

Notice how many of these really challenging questions we find towards the end of the section. It should be good motivation to hurry up with the easier questions towards the beginning of the section. That way you'll have time to think these through!

This is a sufficient assumption question. We're asked to add something to the evidence that will allow the conclusion to be properly drawn. Like most sufficient assumptions towards the end of the section, this one relies on conditional logic.

Evidence
We ought to pay attention only to the intrinsic properties of a work of art.

Conclusion
What is really aesthetically relevant is, therefore, not what a painting symbolizes.

We could put these pieces into formal notation to help see the gap.

EP ---> ~R
=======
R ---> ~S

(formal notation key: EP = extrinsic properties, R = relevant, S = symbolizes)

If we take the contrapositive of the premise we get

EP ---> ~R
======
S ---> ~R

The gap in the reasoning can be seen at this point fairly clearly,
S ---> EP

If we add that to the argument we get.

S ---> EP
EP ---> ~R
======
S ---> ~R

Scanning through the answer choices for S --->EP we find answer choice (A) best states this gap.

(B) says that there are symbolic properties. So what? The answer should have related symbolic properties with extrinsic properties.
(C) doesn't bridge the gap to the conclusion about what a painting symbolizes.
(D) is similar to answer choice (B), but instead of saying that symbolic properties exist, this answer choice states that some things cannot be described as having symbolic properties.
(E) doesn't bridge the gap to the conclusion about what a painting symbolizes.

I hope this helps you work through this one. If you need help with the formal notation, let me know. The absence of good key words to organize the information makes this one tough!

[skapur777]

That's exactly my issue with this one. The absence of key words and, in fact, the overabundance of different terms makes it really confusing for me.

First he says we 'ought to pay attention', then he says things are 'irrelevant to our aesthetic interactions', then he sas that what we should consider is 'only what is directly presented in our experience of it'.

then the conclusion is about aesthetically relevant stuff.

So does, 'ought to pay attention, 'aesthetic interactions' and 'aesthetically relevant' all basically mean 'relevant'?

And how does the first line of the argument fit with the idea of considering 'only what is directly presented in our experience of it'? Do intrinsic properties=only what is directly presented in our experience?

So confusing!! Luckily the answer choices aren't so difficult but the argument itself is confusing as hell.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

So does, 'ought to pay attention, 'aesthetic interactions' and 'aesthetically relevant' all basically mean 'relevant'?

Not exactly, but close. The the first and last one do, but the second one, "aesthetic interactions" does not mean relevant.

And how does the first line of the argument fit with the idea of considering 'only what is directly presented in our experience of it'? Do intrinsic properties=only what is directly presented in our experience?

Saying what we "ought to to pay attention to" and what we "should consider" conveys an equivalent meaning. And there is no implied relationship between an intrinsic property and what is directly presented in our experience of a work of art. The argument does imply that they are both aesthetically relevant to our experience of a work of art. But it's not implying that they're the same thing.

Does that answer your questions? The conditional logic is tough to see on this one, but it's definitely implied.

[goriano]

So does, 'ought to pay attention, 'aesthetic interactions' and 'aesthetically relevant' all basically mean 'relevant'?

Not exactly, but close. The the first and last one do, but the second one, "aesthetic interactions" does not mean relevant.

And how does the first line of the argument fit with the idea of considering 'only what is directly presented in our experience of it'? Do intrinsic properties=only what is directly presented in our experience?

Saying what we "ought to to pay attention to" and what we "should consider" conveys an equivalent meaning. And there is no implied relationship between an intrinsic property and what is directly presented in our experience of a work of art. The argument does imply that they are both aesthetically relevant to our experience of a work of art. But it's not implying that they're the same thing.

Does that answer your questions? The conditional logic is tough to see on this one, but it's definitely implied.

Why is the conclusion of the stimulus "What is is aesthetically relevant, therefore, is not what a painting symbolizes?"

It seems like the statement above is supporting the statement "We ought to pay attention only to the intrinsic properties of a work of art," and I interpreted that as the conclusion. Help?

[timmydoeslsat]

So often we see the prescriptive language used as the conclusion of the argument. It is pretty rare to have it built in as a premise. Although, in this case, the premise is not directly used to lead to the conclusion.

Even if you were of the understanding that the first sentence was the conclusion, a quick glance of the answer choices would confirm that nothing is leading you to conclude "should/out pay attention..."

The last sentence is definitely a conclusion, it has the word therefore in it. So we need to know if this is a main conclusion or perhaps an intermediate.

This is not a hard argument in my estimation.

You have prescriptive language in the first sentence. At first glance, unknown whether it is a conclusion or a premise. When I first saw the argument, I too thought this would be the conclusion.

The second sentence, in my estimation is supporting the first sentence. The example in the third sentence is supporting the second sentence.

Then, we have a total swerve in the argument. It says that therefore what is really relevant aesthetically is not what a painting symbolizes, but it what directly presents to experience.

Did we read anything about symbolism prior to this conclusion? How are we to know that symbolism is not encompassed in the idea of "directly presents to experience?"

[goriano]

So often we see the prescriptive language used as the conclusion of the argument. It is pretty rare to have it built in as a premise. Although, in this case, the premise is not directly used to lead to the conclusion.

Even if you were of the understanding that the first sentence was the conclusion, a quick glance of the answer choices would confirm that nothing is leading you to conclude "should/out pay attention..."

The last sentence is definitely a conclusion, it has the word therefore in it. So we need to know if this is a main conclusion or perhaps an intermediate.

This is not a hard argument in my estimation.

You have prescriptive language in the first sentence. At first glance, unknown whether it is a conclusion or a premise. When I first saw the argument, I too thought this would be the conclusion.

The second sentence, in my estimation is supporting the first sentence. The example in the third sentence is supporting the second sentence.

Then, we have a total swerve in the argument. It says that therefore what is really relevant aesthetically is not what a painting symbolizes, but it what directly presents to experience.

Did we read anything about symbolism prior to this conclusion? How are we to know that symbolism is not encompassed in the idea of "directly presents to experience?"

Thank you for your explanation, but I'm still not getting it :/

The only part of your response I'm understanding is the bit about glancing at the answer choices and realizing that nothing there is leading one to conclude "should/out pay attention." But I'd ideally like to be able to recognize the conclusion after reading the stimulus.

I'd like to focus on these two statements:

Evidence
We ought to pay attention only to the intrinsic properties of a work of art.

Conclusion
What is really aesthetically relevant is, therefore, not what a painting symbolizes.

I can see the logic going from SINCE we ought to pay attention to only intrinsic properties, SO what is aesthetically relevant is not what a painting symbolizes.

But I can equally (if not more) see the logic going from SINCE what is aesthetically relevant is not what a painting symbolizes, SO we ought to pay attention to intrinsic properties.

Further clarification would be much appreciated. Thank you!

[nmop_apisdn2]

+1. Looking for a better explanation.

It seems as though we are totally neglecting intrinsic properties, by reference of the above diagrammed conditionals, and I'm not exactly sure why.

[austindyoung]

I didn`t read the long explanation of the original poster, but I think (C) is wrong because it just restates the first sentence of the stimulus. An assumption has got to be unstated. But (C) and the first sentence of the stimulus are practically identical in meaning.

Great catch! Ok, so I think this one can be intuitively solved.

The person goes on and on stating that (paraphrase- and by the way, I think paraphrasing this stuff into your own logic really makes these easier)... stating that intrinsic (directly presented) properties are only what we should look at and we shouldn't pay attention to what is extrinsic.

Therefore, symbolic stuff doesn't matter. Wait- why? This is a new element. We don't know if symbolism is extrinsic or intrinsic.

So, it's pretty obvious that the author is assuming that it's not intrinsic. So the author is assuming symbolism is extrinsic. That's why it doesn't matter.

(A) says just this: If it's symbolic, it's extrinsic.

[Carlystern]

Great question...

Notice how many of these really challenging questions we find towards the end of the section. It should be good motivation to hurry up with the easier questions towards the beginning of the section. That way you'll have time to think these through!

This is a sufficient assumption question. We're asked to add something to the evidence that will allow the conclusion to be properly drawn. Like most sufficient assumptions towards the end of the section, this one relies on conditional logic.

Evidence
We ought to pay attention only to the intrinsic properties of a work of art.

Conclusion
What is really aesthetically relevant is, therefore, not what a painting symbolizes.

We could put these pieces into formal notation to help see the gap.

EP ---> ~R
=======
R ---> ~S

(formal notation key: EP = extrinsic properties, R = relevant, S = symbolizes)

If we take the contrapositive of the premise we get

EP ---> ~R
======
S ---> ~R

The gap in the reasoning can be seen at this point fairly clearly,
S ---> EP

If we add that to the argument we get.

S ---> EP
EP ---> ~R
======
S ---> ~R

Scanning through the answer choices for S --->EP we find answer choice (A) best states this gap.

(B) says that there are symbolic properties. So what? The answer should have related symbolic properties with extrinsic properties.
(C) doesn't bridge the gap to the conclusion about what a painting symbolizes.
(D) is similar to answer choice (B), but instead of saying that symbolic properties exist, this answer choice states that some things cannot be described as having symbolic properties.
(E) doesn't bridge the gap to the conclusion about what a painting symbolizes.

I hope this helps you work through this one. If you need help with the formal notation, let me know. The absence of good key words to organize the information makes this one tough!

You stated that the evidence was INTRINSIC PROPERTIES, but the notation reflects EXTRINSIC PROPERTIES. I understand it all if you clear that up for me.

Carly

[einuoa]

Since we should pay attention to only the intrinsic properties of a work of art, the extrinsic properties are irrelevant... and the sentence later in the paragraph states that what a painting symbolizes is not aesthetically relevant, the diagram should concern with what is extrinsic. I mean, I guess you can also infer that what is aesthetically relevant is what it directly presents to experience, therefore that goes with the intrinsic properties of a work of art. So like
intrinsic-->relevant
relevant-->presents to experience
But diagramming the intrinsic is irrelevant (hahah...) because none of the answer choices concern with what the intrinsic diagram says.
If you diagram the extrinsic, which is sort of the reverse of the intrinsic, the first answer choice A follows with the extrinsic diagram.

Hopefully that helped.

[Carlystern]

einuoa,

It does help, thank you. So, basically, I could have ruled out creating a conditional statement for intrinsic because none of the answers address that condition, right? I'm trying hard not to be so literal and I've just recently realized that the condition statement doesn't have to be in order for it to follow logically (because I can tweak it myself). I've always loosened up on being rigid with the diction and realized you can allow a shift in words if I come to a choice between two answers. Am I making sense?

Carly

[ohthatpatrick]

Remember that intrinsic and extrinsic are binary opposites.

So Matt's original explanation said "only pay attention to intrinsic". This is the same statement as "DON'T pay attention to extrinsic".

So he could have written the first sentence as
Pay attention --> Intrinsic
or
Extrinsic --> ~Pay Attention (this is just the contrapositive)

While I'm here, I'll just add to the great "Where the heck is the Conclusion?" debate, that the only keyword they offer us is therefore in the final sentence.

Sufficient Assumption is generous about giving us keyword signposts to understand WHAT claim they want us to treat as the conclusion.

I agree with the poster who was saying it makes just as much sense to say the 1st sentence supports the last as it would to say that the last supports the 1st (neither arrangement makes much sense because we're missing a big assumption). LSAT realizes this. They're not expecting us to order the ideas by common sense here. If they wanted the last sentence to support the first, there would be some keyword assistance so we could see that.

Seeing the 'therefore' in the final sentence (and no other keywords elsewhere), I would treat that as the conclusion.

What am I trying to prove?
What a painting symbolizes is not aesthetically relevant, whereas what a painting directly presents is.

Are any terms in the conclusion new/undefined?
Yes. We only see "what a painting symbolizes" here in the conclusion. Meanwhile, 'aesthetically relevant' and 'directly presents to experience' are repeated/defined in the premises.

Okay, if "what a painting symbolizes" is the new ingredient, what am I trying to prove about it?
I gotta prove that "what is symbolized" is "NOT aesthetically relevant"

Okay, well what rule did they give me in the premise for how to prove whether or not something is aesthetically relevant?
They said "extrinsic properties are irrelevant to our aesthetic interactions with a work of art"

Okay, if that's my rule, then what do I need to know about "what's symbolized" to prove that it's "NOT aesthetically irrelevant"?
I need to know that "what's symbolized" is "extrinsic properties".

Hope this helps.

[WaltGrace1983]

Is the sentence "For example, when we look at a painting we should consider only what is directly presented in our experience of it" saying (Directly presented → Relevant to Aesthetic Interaction)? It doesn't really seem so on the first read but, then again, I don't understand how we make the jump from "aesthetically relevant" to "what it directly presents to experience."

The "for example" makes it seem like it is offering more evidence but I am unsure.

The way I eliminated (C) was by asking if "what a painting symbolizes" is an extrinsic or intrinsic property. (C) wouldn't tell us.

[christine.defenbaugh]

Good question, WaltGrace1983!

I think that's exactly what it's saying. That sentence is offering more evidence, specifically, that [directly presented] means it's something we should consider - and if we 'should' consider it, that must mean that it's relevant!

Why does this matter? Because the conclusion might appear, at first glance, to have two parts: 1) [directly presented] --> relevant and 2) [symbolizes] --> not relevant.

The correct answer choice only deals with the weirdo new term 'symbolizes', so in order for this to truly be a sufficient assumption, the other part of the conclusion needs to already be solidly grounded. If we realize that the premises are telling us that [directly presented] is relevant, then the other half of the conclusion doesn't need any additional support.

I think the easiest way to parse out what's going on here is to imagine the person writing this question for the LSAT. They want to make a disconnect between symbolism and extrinsic properties. But they also want to add in a bunch of fluffy language to obscure it. But THEN they need to make darn sure that once you select the correct answer, the argument is air-tight - so they add in this odd sentence with 'for example' in order to lock down the 'directly presented' bit.

Your eliminations are solid on this one - the most efficient way to think about this is to recognize that your answer *must* deal with 'symbolism', since it's the new weirdo idea, and then work from there.

Please let me know if this helps clear up a few things!

[smsotolongo]

If the argument is EP --> ~R
=============
S --> ~R (contrapositive)
Why is the gap bridged by S --> EP and not EP -->S?

Thanks?

[WaltGrace1983]

If the argument is EP --> ~R
=============
S --> ~R (contrapositive)
Why is the gap bridged by S --> EP and not EP -->S?

Thanks?

Because if S --> EP and we know (from the premises) that EP --> ~R, then we know that S --> ~R.

If it was EP --> S, then we still don't know much about (S). Maybe there aren't any (EP)s. Maybe we only something about some (S)s but not all.

Unless I am mistaken, it works like this:

If the trigger of the conclusion matches the trigger of the premise, then you would assume premise to conclusion (exhibit A). Meanwhile, if it is like this question, where the necessary of the conclusion matches the necessary of the premise, you would assume conclusion to premise (exhibit B)

B --> C
=====
A --> C

You are assuming A --> B

"All bats are crazy. Therefore, all aardvarks are crazy."

(C) All aardvarks are bats. Correct

A --> B
====
A --> C

You are assuming B --> C

"All aardvarks are bats. Therefore, all aardvarks are crazy"

(C) All bats are crazy. Correct

[seychelles1718]

Remember that intrinsic and extrinsic are binary opposites.

So Matt's original explanation said "only pay attention to intrinsic". This is the same statement as "DON'T pay attention to extrinsic".

So he could have written the first sentence as
Pay attention --> Intrinsic
or
Extrinsic --> ~Pay Attention (this is just the contrapositive)

While I'm here, I'll just add to the great "Where the heck is the Conclusion?" debate, that the only keyword they offer us is therefore in the final sentence.

Sufficient Assumption is generous about giving us keyword signposts to understand WHAT claim they want us to treat as the conclusion.

I agree with the poster who was saying it makes just as much sense to say the 1st sentence supports the last as it would to say that the last supports the 1st (neither arrangement makes much sense because we're missing a big assumption). LSAT realizes this. They're not expecting us to order the ideas by common sense here. If they wanted the last sentence to support the first, there would be some keyword assistance so we could see that.

Seeing the 'therefore' in the final sentence (and no other keywords elsewhere), I would treat that as the conclusion.

What am I trying to prove?
What a painting symbolizes is not aesthetically relevant, whereas what a painting directly presents is.

Are any terms in the conclusion new/undefined?
Yes. We only see "what a painting symbolizes" here in the conclusion. Meanwhile, 'aesthetically relevant' and 'directly presents to experience' are repeated/defined in the premises.

Okay, if "what a painting symbolizes" is the new ingredient, what am I trying to prove about it?
I gotta prove that "what is symbolized" is "NOT aesthetically relevant"

Okay, well what rule did they give me in the premise for how to prove whether or not something is aesthetically relevant?
They said "extrinsic properties are irrelevant to our aesthetic interactions with a work of art"

Okay, if that's my rule, then what do I need to know about "what's symbolized" to prove that it's "NOT aesthetically irrelevant"?
I need to know that "what's symbolized" is "extrinsic properties".

Hope this helps.

Hi Patrick,

I know my question is not relevant to this question but sometimes when the conclusion in a sufficient assumption Q doesn't have any new elements/words (unlike this question), what do we do then?

[ohthatpatrick]

If the terms in the conclusion have already been mentioned in the evidence, then the missing link or idea is in the evidence itself.

For example:

All A's are B's.
All C's are D's.
Thus, all A's are D's.

What are we missing?

A and D, in the conclusion, are not new, so there must be some link internal to the evidence that's missing.

Sufficient assumption: all B's are C's.

Same thing with more meat on its bones:
Golfers are not athletes. After all, athletes can climb mountains and golfers use golf carts to get around the golf course.

The conclusion doesn't have any new guys:
Golfers are not athletes. After all, athletes can climb mountains and golfers use golf carts to get around the golf course.

So you're basically looking to link together the leftover ideas in the evidence.
SA: If you use a golf cart to get around the golf course, you can't climb mountains.