#25 - Art critic: An arrangement of objects tends to be

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Principle, Must Be True, SN. The correct answer choice is (D).

Answer choice (A):

Answer choice (B):

Answer choice (C):

Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer choice.

Answer choice (E):


This explanation is still in progress. Please post any questions below!

[meaningfuljournalism]

Hi,

Could you explain why D is correct and why C is incorrect? Also, is there conditional or causal reasoning in the stimulus? If so, how does one diagram it?

Many thanks,

[KelseyWoods]

Hi meaningfuljournalism!

This stimulus contains conditional reasoning. The principle in the stimulus states that an arrangement of objects tends to be aesthetically pleasing to the extent that it gives the impression that the person who arranged the objects succeeded at what he or she was attempting to do. So basically, the art critic is saying that if the arrangement appears to have been arranged according to the way the artist intended, then the arrangement would be aesthetically pleasing. You could diagram it like this:

Appears to be arranged as intended by artist Aesthetically pleasing

Answer choice (D) follows this principle by saying that if the panels were arranged in a way that seemed more like the artist had gotten them arranged in the way she wanted, then the art installation would be more aesthetically pleasing.

Answer choice (C) tells us that the wooden panel arrangement is not symmetrical, so therefore it is likely to give the impression that they are not arranged as intended. But this answer choice doesn't have anything to do with whether or not the arrangement would be seen as aesthetically pleasing. Instead, it's making a link between asymmetry and not appearing to be arranged as intended. The principle above does not discuss asymmetry and so this answer choice is not something that must be true based on the principle.

Hope this helps!

Best,
Kelsey

[ek4151]

Hi PS Staff,

Thank you Kelsey for D's explanation!

I was between A and D here, but I'm not sure what I'm missing that rules out A. In A, they're saying the piece is aesthetically pleasing, but that the viewers don't know the arranger/artist's vision wasn't displayed as intended. But isn't the degree of aesthetic enjoyment derived solely from the impression of how the actual arrangement is a match to the artist's will( how well was it setup in accordance with what it should look like)? It could be a total misrepresentation of what the artist wanted, but if the viewers believe otherwise, it doesn't matter.

Thanks in advance for the help.

[Jeremy Press]

Hi ek4151,

The principle expressed in the stimulus suggests there is a positive correlation between an arrangement's level of aesthetic pleasure and the impression it gives that the artist succeeded in achieving their intention.

The problem with answer choice A is that there is nothing in the answer to suggest there is such a correlation. After all, the installation is very aesthetically pleasing. But the installation isn't reflective of the author's intention. So, in a sense, the answer is exactly the opposite of the principle in the stimulus, and the stimulus can't justify its reasoning.

There's another subtle problem with answer choice A. In Must Be True Principle questions like this one, we tend to see two kinds of principles in the stimulus: (1) "judgment" principles (which are about giving something a label); and (2) "recommendation" principles (which are about telling us what we "should" or "ought" to do). The principle in this stimulus is a judgment principle: the principle tells us the impression the object arrangement gives will generally let us label that arrangement "aesthetically pleasing" The principle in the stimulus isn't recommending anything. It's not telling us what we should or ought to do. In general (in the vast, vast majority of cases) a judgment principle will only justify a "judgment" conclusion. It will not justify a "recommendation" conclusion. What we have in the conclusion of answer choice A, though, is a recommendation conclusion ("the panels should be rearranged to reflect the artist's intention"). The stimulus principle doesn't give us any basis to say what we should or ought to do in certain situations, so it cannot justify the reasoning in answer choice A.

I hope this helps!

[ek4151]

Hi ek4151,

The principle expressed in the stimulus suggests there is a positive correlation between an arrangement's level of aesthetic pleasure and the impression it gives that the artist succeeded in achieving their intention.

The problem with answer choice A is that there is nothing in the answer to suggest there is such a correlation. After all, the installation is very aesthetically pleasing. But the installation isn't reflective of the author's intention. So, in a sense, the answer is exactly the opposite of the principle in the stimulus, and the stimulus can't justify its reasoning.

There's another subtle problem with answer choice A. In Must Be True Principle questions like this one, we tend to see two kinds of principles in the stimulus: (1) "judgment" principles (which are about giving something a label); and (2) "recommendation" principles (which are about telling us what we "should" or "ought" to do). The principle in this stimulus is a judgment principle: the principle tells us the impression the object arrangement gives will generally let us label that arrangement "aesthetically pleasing" The principle in the stimulus isn't recommending anything. It's not telling us what we should or ought to do. In general (in the vast, vast majority of cases) a judgment principle will only justify a "judgment" conclusion. It will not justify a "recommendation" conclusion. What we have in the conclusion of answer choice A, though, is a recommendation conclusion ("the panels should be rearranged to reflect the artist's intention"). The stimulus principle doesn't give us any basis to say what we should or ought to do in certain situations, so it cannot justify the reasoning in answer choice A.

I hope this helps!

It does, and thank you Jeremy!

[jonathan95129]

I was stuck between B and D and chose correctly due to my gut instinct telling me that B was incorrect. Upon second examination, is B incorrect because it talks about the relative value of aesthetic pleasure of multiple exhibitions as opposed to the aesthetic pleasure of one exhibition? Are there other reasons why B is incorrect or is this the only/primary one?

[Robert Carroll]

Jonathan,

Answer choice (B) is basically saying that anything except the most aesthetically pleasing installation is probably not arranged the way the artist wants it to be arranged. That's must stricter than the stimulus, which posits a correlation between how much it looks like the artist succeeded in the arrangement and how aesthetically pleasing it is. We can't go as far as saying: "That is less aesthetically pleasing than something, so it doesn't look like the artist succeeded at all."

An additional problem with answer choice (B) is that the stimulus is not saying that arrangements are aesthetically pleasing to the extent the artist actually succeeded in their attempted arrangement, but rather that the former correlates with the extent to which the arrangement gives the impression that the artist succeeded in their attempt. So we can't infer that the artist didn't succeed from the fact that something isn't aesthetically pleasing anyway.

Robert Carroll

[arvinm123]

Hi PowerScore

I am having trouble deciphering where the conditional reasoning is coming from. There are no conditional reasoning indicators (at least that I noticed) indicating a conditional relationship. Am I missing something? Is it the case that there is a method to recognize conditional reasoning when indicators are absent?

Please let me know.

Thanks

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi arvinm123,

The language "to the extent that" indicates conditionality here. The key is that the statement indicates that one thing is required by another. That's always the relationship that we look for in conditional situations. We can recognize that relationship by looking for familiar indicator words, but sometimes we just need to recognize the relationship by its nature. If an arrangement gives the impression that the artist succeeded at what they were attempting to do, then it tends to be ascetically pleasing. You can rephrase the stimulus in a conditional statement.

Recognizing conditionality where it uses less familiar indicators can be tricky. Keep at it!