#24 - Andy Warhol’s Brillo Boxes is a stack of boxes that

[Adam Tyson]

You're correct in identifying the opposing argument, arvinm123, but there is no ambiguity in it. Whoever is making that argument is absolutely clear in their approach, and they don't rely on anything that is uncertain or subject to interpretation. Imagine someone making that argument: "Appearance only determines whether something is art." Is there any room for discussion there? Not at all!

And the claim that two things that look identical are nevertheless different (one is art, the other is not) is not an ambiguity. We may not know exactly WHY they are different, but that's not the same as saying there is something ambiguous (uncertain, unclear, undetermined) about it. Again, our author is clear and certain that it is true, and they are not allowing any key terms to shift in meaning, so there is no ambiguity involved.

[hinarizvi]

Can you please explain the latter part of answer choice E?

E - showing that something that would be impossible if a particular thesis were correct is actually true

This is saying that the argument shows that something that would be impossible (Andy Worhal's brillo boxes is considered art but the actual item, a stack of boxes, is not) if a particular thesis were correct (appearance alone determines what is a work of art) is actually true - The "is actually true" part is throwing me off...Can you help me put it together?

[H714W7]

Can you please explain the latter part of answer choice E?

E - showing that something that would be impossible if a particular thesis were correct is actually true

This is saying that the argument shows that something that would be impossible (Andy Worhal's brillo boxes is considered art but the actual item, a stack of boxes, is not) if a particular thesis were correct (appearance alone determines what is a work of art) is actually true - The "is actually true" part is throwing me off...Can you help me put it together?

I think is actually true here just means that the thing that would be impossible is actually the case. That is, as you said: "Andy Warhol's brillo boxes is considered art but the actual item, a stack of boxes, is not. " This statement is true. It would be impossible (i.e. couldn't possibly be true) if the appearance thesis were correct, but it is actually true: the brillo boxes are considered art but the boxes are not (even though they have the same appearance and therefore should both be art if the thesis - appearance alone determines what is a work of art - were correct).

So "is actually true" is just saying that the opposite of what would happen if the thesis were correct (things that resemble each other would either both be art or not art) is in fact the case.
"is actually true" is kind of like the negation of "is impossible."

Restatement: 1. If the thesis were correct, it would be impossible for one object to be art while an identical object is not art.
2. One object is art while an identical object is not art (in other words-- ~1; 1 is wrong. The impossible thing is actually true)
Implication: 3. Therefore, the thesis must be incorrect.

[Jeff Wren]

Hi hinarizvi and H714W7

H714W7, your explanation is exactly right.

What makes Answer E particularly tricky to understand is the syntax/ordering of the sentence.

The words "is actually true" refers back to "something that would be impossible" rather than "if a particular thesis were correct."

Reordered, Answer E is basically saying "showing that something that is actually true would be impossible according to a particular thesis, if that thesis were correct." In other words, according to a certain thesis, X would be impossible (X in this case being that two things that are identical in appearance have different determinations of whether each one is considered art). In reality, X is not only possible but actually exists (the Andy Warhol Brillo Boxes example). Therefore, this thesis is incorrect (since it is contradicted by the facts).