#24 - We ought to pay attention only to the intrinsic

[lsat2016]

Hello,

Is the easiest method to go about this question linking the new term in the conclusion to the premise?

I tried to do that for "symbolizes" in the conclusion because it was not mentioned in the premise, but I was unsure how to link it to "extrinsic properties".

I diagrammed the argument as

attention -> intrinsic

~ intrinsic (because binary opposite of extrinsic) -> ~relevant

attention -> experience

Conclusion:

relevant -> ~symbolizes

relevant -> experience


Thank you

[Clay Cooper]

Hi Lsat2016,

Thanks for your question. I think you understand this stimulus pretty well.

I think you are going about it the right way by trying to link the new element present in the conclusion with the premises. The new element is undoubtedly what an artwork 'symbolizes' - that hadn't been mentioned before. We can link that with being irrelevant by noticing the gap in the conditional reasoning that is presented in the premises.

Here's how I diagrammed it:

ought to pay attention to it directly presented in experience

~intrinsic ~aesthetically relevant

The conclusion claims, in part, that what a painting symbolizes is not aesthetically relevant. What we need to do is pick an answer choice that is required to prove this part of the claim.

I think we do have a way of proving that something is not aesthetically relevant - the second rule diagrammed above. What we need to know to prove this is that the first thing is not intrinsic. Therefore, if we want to prove that what a painting symbolizes is not aesthetically relevant, we can do so by proving that what a painting symbolizes is not intrinsic - which is precisely what answer choice A tells us.

Does that help? Again, I think you basically understand this question, and I hope this has just clarified the linking of the elements for you a bit.

[lsat2016]

ought to pay attention to it directly presented in experience

~intrinsic ~aesthetically relevant

Hello,

Thank you for your answer. However, I was just wondering why you diagrammed it as attention -> experience instead of pay attention -> intrinsic properties, since the statement is "we ought to pay attention only to the intrinsic properties of art".

After reading the stimulus a few times, I realized that the "other extrinsic properties are irrelevant"and "for example" sentences are premises that modify the sub-conclusion: "we ought to pay attention only to intrinsic properties of art". To my understanding, my task is to bridge the gap between the premise and the subconclusion or the subconclusion to the main conclusion. Therefore, after doing this exercise again, I diagrammed:

pay attention -> intrinsic properties of art
Conclusion: relevant -> what a painting symbolizes.

However, from this point on I wasn't sure how to link the two statements together.

Thank you!

[David Boyle]

ought to pay attention to it directly presented in experience

~intrinsic ~aesthetically relevant

Hello,

Thank you for your answer. However, I was just wondering why you diagrammed it as attention -> experience instead of pay attention -> intrinsic properties, since the statement is "we ought to pay attention only to the intrinsic properties of art".

After reading the stimulus a few times, I realized that the "other extrinsic properties are irrelevant"and "for example" sentences are premises that modify the sub-conclusion: "we ought to pay attention only to intrinsic properties of art". To my understanding, my task is to bridge the gap between the premise and the subconclusion or the subconclusion to the main conclusion. Therefore, after doing this exercise again, I diagrammed:

pay attention -> intrinsic properties of art
Conclusion: relevant -> what a painting symbolizes.

However, from this point on I wasn't sure how to link the two statements together.

Thank you!

Hello lsat2016,

"when we look at a painting we should consider only what is directly presented in our experience of it", so "look" is sort of synonymous with "attention". So,

attention experience

Somewhat as you and Clay said above, plus some ideas of my own:

attention intrinsic

~intrinsic (because binary opposite of extrinsic) ~relevant

relevant intrinsic

attention direct experience

Conclusion: relevant ~symbolize (symbolize ~relevant), relevant direct experience

Answer A: symbolize ~intrinsic

symbolize ~intrinsic ~relevant

(And maybe by implication, "intrinsic" and "direct experience" may be more-or-less synonymous)


Hope this helps,
David

[Johnclem]

Hi powerscore,
I have been wrestling with this one like a madman.my issue is that I truly have trouble accepting the last sentence as the conclusion of the argument . I see the last sentence as a secondary conclusion. I wrote it out a few times and see everything in the text supporting the first sentence.
Is it possible for a justify question to fill in the gap between a sub conclusion and the evidence or does it always have to connect to the primary conclusion?

Thanks
John

[Kristina Moen]

Hi John,

Yes, it is totally possible on a Justify question for an answer choice to link a premise to a sub-conclusion. Think about the Justify Formula. You could have something like:
Premise = 2
Sub-Conclusion = 4
Additional Premise = 3
________________
Conclusion = 7

So you'd want an answer choice that links the first premise with the sub-conclusion, which would be 2!

Here's another example:
All dogs go to heaven.
Therefore, Philip is going to heaven.
All animals in heaven are angels.
So Philip is an angel. (Awwwwwww)

If that were a Justify question, you'd want an answer choice that said "Philip is a dog."

Going back to the question before us - Take a look at your Conclusion Indicators. The word "therefore" is a Conclusion Indicator. You might also try taking the first/second and last sentence and putting the word because between them. See what order makes sense. Here, I think that "What is really aesthetically relevant is not what a painting symbolizes, but what it directly presents to experience because we ought to pay attention only to the intrinsic properties of a work of art and its other, extrinsic properties are irrelevant to our aesthetic interactions with it" make the most sense.

You can also ask yourself "What is the author driving at?" or "What does the author want me to believe?" You can also ask yourself "What has the author presented as fact, and what has the author presented as a conclusion or inference based on the facts?" For example, in the above dog/heaven argument, I presented these two facts - "All dogs go to heaven" and "All animals in heaven are angels." I provided no supporting evidence for those facts. I just presented them as facts and moved on to my conclusion about Philip.

I hope this helps. This was one of the most difficult questions in the section.

[MikeJones]

ought to pay attention to it directly presented in experience

~intrinsic ~aesthetically relevant

Hello,

Thank you for your answer. However, I was just wondering why you diagrammed it as attention -> experience instead of pay attention -> intrinsic properties, since the statement is "we ought to pay attention only to the intrinsic properties of art".

After reading the stimulus a few times, I realized that the "other extrinsic properties are irrelevant"and "for example" sentences are premises that modify the sub-conclusion: "we ought to pay attention only to intrinsic properties of art". To my understanding, my task is to bridge the gap between the premise and the subconclusion or the subconclusion to the main conclusion. Therefore, after doing this exercise again, I diagrammed:

pay attention -> intrinsic properties of art
Conclusion: relevant -> what a painting symbolizes.

However, from this point on I wasn't sure how to link the two statements together.

Thank you!

Hello lsat2016,

"when we look at a painting we should consider only what is directly presented in our experience of it", so "look" is sort of synonymous with "attention". So,

attention experience

Somewhat as you and Clay said above, plus some ideas of my own:

attention intrinsic

~intrinsic (because binary opposite of extrinsic) ~relevant

relevant intrinsic

attention direct experience

Conclusion: relevant ~symbolize (symbolize ~relevant), relevant direct experience

Answer A: symbolize ~intrinsic

symbolize ~intrinsic ~relevant

(And maybe by implication, "intrinsic" and "direct experience" may be more-or-less synonymous)


Hope this helps,
David

Hi David,

This conditional logic is somehow not tracking for me. When doing the test, I notated the terms as such:

A I
/I /R
A DE
Conc: R DE

Of course I wasn't able to find I A in the answer choices, so I guessed and got the question wrong. I did notice the new term in the conclusion, but ultimately discarded "symbolizes" because it seemed extraneous.

Now I noticed that you have two conclusions written here: R /S, as well as R DE

I've never seen a stimulus with two conclusions. How are we to determine which one to seek an answer for? And could I A have been just as acceptable an answer choice? Thank you.

[LSAT2018]

Please review the statements below:
Aesthetically Relevant → Intrinsic Properties
Aesthetically Relevant → Experience
Intrinsic Properties → Experience
First question, I initially thought that I needed to link the intrinsic properties with experience. Has this already been implied in the stimulus?

Extrinsic Properties → Not Aesthetically Relevant
Symbol → Not Aesthetically Relevant
Symbol → Extrinsic Properties
Second question, but why does the question focus on the extrinsic/symbolize part of the argument?

[Adam Tyson]

I'm not entirely sure what your diagram represents here, LSAT2018. Does the word "experience" in each of these diagrams mean "that is what we experience"? Or "that is what is presented for us to experience"? Or maybe "that is what is relevant to our experience"?

I think your basic understanding of the argument is solid here, and your prephrase was good - we are probably looking for some connection between the intrinsic aspects of an artwork and our direct (non-symbolic) experience of it. So, it's a painting of a fish, and we should base our aesthetic appreciation of the painting on the "fishness" of it, and not on whatever the fish might symbolize (mortality, material goods, your mother, etc.)

Because this is question 24, rather than question 4, we can expect things to be a bit more complex, so the answer may not be so obvious as "the intrinsic aspects of a work of art are the only things that are directly presented to us in that work of art", or some such thing. That's what makes answer A so tricky, and also, imo, makes answer C so attractive. C is straightforward, clear, easy...but it fails to create a new connection in the argument, and only repeats what was already given. That can't justify the conclusion! Answer A, though, makes the new connection in a subtle and confusing way - if symbolism is limited to the extrinsic properties, then the intrinsic ones must have no symbolism, and are therefore no more than whatever they directly present to us. It's just a fish, not a symbol for mother. That's what we were looking for, but not in the way we expected to find it.

Mike, I realize this is a long time overdue, and I apologize that we apparently never answered your question! There are many arguments with multiple conclusions, and those usually come in the form of intermediate (or subordinate) conclusions, which are conclusions based on some premises and which, in turn, support the main conclusion. For example; "There is a fish in this painting, and fish symbolize mothers, so this painting has symbolism in it. Paintings with symbolism in them are always subject to debate about their meaning, so this painting is subject to such debate." Two conclusions - this painting has symbolism, and this painting is subject to debate - the former is intermediate and supports the latter, which is the main conclusion.

In this argument, though, it's really just one conclusion, but a compound conclusion: it's not one thing, but this other thing. If it is aesthetically relevant, then it is not symbolic and it is what is directly presented. That, too, is a common LSAT structure, and you should track all aspects of the compound conclusions, because the answer could be about either one of them in isolation.

I hope that helps you both, guys!

[Tajadas]

I understand that symbols must be extrinsic so that they are not relevant, but I don't understand how the author makes a connection from relevant to direct experience. I have:

attention -> intrinsic
relevant -> intrinsic
attention -> direct experience

goal: relevant -> direct experience

The only was I can see this working is relevant -> intrinsic -> attention ->direct experience. But to do this, I need to reverse my first inference. Did I do something wrong? Is it attention -> or vice versa?