#16 - Curator: Since ancient times, the fine arts were

[pacer]

I have a general questions stemming from Q16

The answer appears to use this type of logic - to conclude that one must do something, we need to assume that one is required to do so. (this is how I have interpreted the correct answer for this question).

Can you elaborate on this and/or provide some more examples? I am a bit confused about this.

[Ron Gore]

Hi Pacer,

I would disagree with your restatement of the correct answer choice. The focus of this answer is addressing the assumption that the "fine arts" having anything to do with the proper "steward[ship] of cultural heritage." It is not necessarily the case that to preserve a society's cultural heritage one would be required to preserve the fine arts.

Please let me know if you have further questions.

Ron

[pacer]

Hi Ron,

Thanks for the response.

Can you please go over the meaning of the stimulus for question 16? I am having a hard time understanding it.

Here is what I was able to get out of the stimulus.

- Curator mentions that the fine arts probably survived because of the subsidies received from aristocracies and religious institutions (Premise statement).

A sub conclusion is made that contemporary societies now have that obligation without assistance of the aristocracies and religious institutions

Main conclusion is made following the indicator "so" - stating that the government must help finance fine arts today.

Basically what I got out of this is that aristocracies and religious institutions used to provide financial help for fine arts in the past. They no longer exist in contemporary societies so the government must take on the responsible in order to ensure that fine arts are preserved and possibly continue on for the future.

I am not sure if my understanding is correct.

I am having a hard time with assumption questions. I find it hard for me to predict answers before looking at the choices because I find that there could be various different assumptions at play for some questions and for other questions (like Q16), I don't have a clue on what the assumption may be. Any tips? I have gone through the chapter with assumptions in the lr bible.

Thanks

[Ron Gore]

Hi Pacer,

Regarding question 16, I would classify the first sentence as background information what has occurred in the past. The second sentence is not a subconclusion, because nothing else in the stimulus supports it. It is a premise, unsupported by any other statement in the stimulus, and more specifically it is a principle, stating what contemporary societies should do.

I agree with you that the last sentence is the conclusion. In essence, you have an argument that consists of one premise and one conclusion:

P: contemporary societies should fulfill their obligation as stewards of cultural heritage

C: contemporary societies must finance fine arts.

This is a fairly common situation, in which there is one premise and one, definitive conclusion. When this occurs, the author is essentially arguing, "if premise, then conclusion." In a Assumption question, you consider what is required by the conclusion. In this case, the assumption is that in order for societies to fulfill their obligation as stewards of cultural heritage, they must help finance fine arts. The assumption is the unstated rule tying together the premise and the conclusion.

Your problem with prephrasing is a common one. You expect your self to come up with some sort of scenario that is required for the conclusion to be valid. Any time your prephrase process requires you to be creative, it's a bad process. Focus instead on the conclusion, and the evidence provided for it.

If there is just one premise for the conclusion, you can always prephrase that the author is applying the rule, "if premise, then conclusion." if there is brand new information in the conclusion, then you know that the correct answer choice will tie that new information to the premises. If there is more than one premise and there is no new information in the conclusion, then the prephrase requires you to identify some other gap in the argumentation.

Hope that helps.

Ron

[lilmissunshine]

Hello,

I got the question right but I was a bit confused by answer (C). I was looking for an answer that would assume the government should take place of aristocracies and religious institutions nowadays. (C) seemed very tempting in this regard, but I didn't choose it because the stimulus says "without the assistance of aristocracies or religious institutions". Could you explain further why (C) is wrong?

Thank you very much!

[Malila Robinson]

Hi lilmissunshine,
Answer C is incorrect because although "aristocracies and religious institutions... were the public sectors of their day" now the government tends to be the public sector. That is why it would be better to rely on the government to fund the fine arts, even if aristocracies and religious institutions were willing to help finance fine arts (which would be the negation of Answer C).
Hope that helps!
-Malila

[sunshine123]

Howdy,

Can ya'll please explain why B is incorrect? Moreover, what if it read, "If contemporary governments help to maintain and enrich the fine arts, aristocratic and religious support for the arts will become unnecesary"

Negated, that would mean aristocratic and religious support would become necessary, undermining one of the premises.

Thanks!

[Adam Tyson]

The negation of answer B would be that private support might still be necessary, and that doesn't ruin the argument that governments must help. Maybe we need governments to do their part regardless of whether others also provide some support? Even though it might weaken the argument, it does not do the kind of damage that the right answer should do when negated. The right answer should, when negated, essentially destroy the reasoning that led to the conclusion, leaving the conclusion with no support at all.

If we changed the answer the way you suggested, the negation would be that the support of religious institutions and aristocracies might still be needed, but again, that would not ruin the claim that governments must help, for the same reason as above.