#16 - There are already more great artworks in the world

[Adelmo]

My apologies to continue on with this topic, but I'm still having some difficulty with understanding what's wrong with E.

My line of thinking was:

Okay, all tastes imaginable can be satisfied by current art

We see the passage mention that "contemporary artists, all of whom believe that their works enable many people to feel more aesthetically fulfilled than they otherwise could, are mistaken."

E states that the argument takes the existence of the current works and says that the aesthetic fulfillment derivable by contemporary artwork is affected by said preexisting works.

We know that all tastes can be satisfied, but who's to say that a piece of art by a contemporary artist can't be more aesthetically fulfilling than another?

I saw a food example earlier in the thread so to put it in those terms. Yes the existence of a Domino's pepperoni pizza will satisfy the taste of someone wanting a pepperoni pizza, but who's to say a new pizzeria wont/can't make a pepperoni pizza that will satisfy my taste AND give me more fulfillment?

I think the line "feel more aesthetically fulfilled than they otherwise could" is ultimately what's really messing me up here. Thank you guys so much!

[Dana D]

Hey Adelmo,

The key here is that this is a flaw question, so we need an answer choice that accurately describes why this argument is flawed. The conclusion is that contemporary artists are wrong because they think their work would allow many people to feel more aesthetically fulfilled then they (the people) otherwise could. The justification for that is that there are many already existing great artworks in the world.

What this argument incorrectly assumes is that these people in question have access to this already existing great artwork, however that may not be the case. Even if answer choice (E) was true, the author's argument is still flawed. To use your food analogy, the innovation of more and more pizza is good and fine, but the real issue is that just because all this pizza exists does not mean I have access to it. If a new pizza came about and it was the first one I actually could access and eat, it would then bring me the fulfillment that so many others have experienced but that I had not up until this point.

Hope that helps!

[DaveFromSpace]

I just want to add on to this discussion for my sake (and hopefully for others as well).

The reason (E) isn't the right answer was explained by Shannon's post on the first page.

(E) says the premise in the stimulus is wrong.

As we all know, we accept all premises on the LSAT as true.

We're focused on attacking the gap between premises and conclusions.

Imagine if I say that all cars are green, therefore, anything green is a car.

(E) would be saying that the flaw in this argument is I presume, without justification, that all cars are green. In the real world, that's a perfectly reasonable flaw to point out. But on the LSAT, we have to take the premise is a given and focus on how it connects to the conclusion.