#10 - Artist: Avant-garde artists intend their work to

[jrc3813]

I'm having trouble breaking down the argument in the stimulus. Is the argument basically:

Avant-garde success challenge mainstream beliefs.

Contrapositive: Do not challenge mainstream beliefs not successful.

Therefore: Popular do not challenge mainstream beliefs not successful?

I don't quite understand how being popular precludes one from challenging mainstream beliefs. I get that mainstream beliefs don't change in a short period of time, but is the artist saying that because you are popular in your time you actually fit into the mainstream rather than challenge it? So in other words, avant-garde art should never be popular in your own time?

If this was an assumption question would one assumption be that one can not both be popular and challenge mainstream beliefs?

[Kristina Moen]

Hi jrc,

I think where you are running in trouble here is trying to diagram conditional statements where no conditional relationship exists. The first sentence tells us what avant-garde artists intend to do, not what they actually do. The second sentence tells us what some art collectors claim (so it's the opinion of the art collectors). The next sentence starts with the word "However," which tells me that the author is about to dispute the art collectors, which he does! The author's conclusion here is that "when an avant-garde work becomes popular it is a sign that the work is not successful," which is in direct opposition what the art collectors claim.

It's not that avant-garde artists should not become popular. But their intention is to initiate change and challenge beliefs, then if an artist becomes popular in its own time, then it means that the artist is not fulfilling that intention. Thus, they are not "successful."

I like that you are picking up on flaws in the logic. You're right that an assumption here is that "one can not both be popular and challenge mainstream beliefs." But the question here is an Method of Reasoning-Argument Part. So we just want to know about the role of the art collectors in this argument.

[brcibake]

How could I define the structure of this argument? I thought the answer was D which is opposite of B so I am confused on where I went wrong.
Thank you

[Francis O'Rourke]

Recognizing that the very next sentence begins with the word "However" should clue you into the possibility that the speaker of this argument disagrees with what was just said. After you find that indication of a turn-around, you should ask yourself what the speaker's conclusion. You'll have an easier time of this if you spot the "Therefore" at the beginning of the final sentence. Don't rely absolutely on these indicator words, but use them to help your understanding of the argument.

I'm not sure what you mean when you ask how to 'define the structure.' Answer choice (B) gives a valid definition of one part of the argument, but you may be alluding to something else. Let us know if you still have a question about this stimulus

[ROMI92]

Hi,

I would like to test my reasoning on this question.

P1 : Avant-garde artists intend their artwork to 'change mainstream beliefs and initiate change' in a society.

P2: Some art collectors believe that if an avant-garde work becomes popular in its time, it is successful.

P3: But, society does not really change its mainstream beliefs very quickly.

C: Thus, even if an avant-garde work becomes popular in its own time, it is not successful because it did not change the mainstream views about society, which take a while to change from premise 3.

So, P2 is a premise, that is ultimately argued against in the conclusion, therefore B is correct?

[Jeff Wren]

Hi Romi,

First, it's important to understand that not every sentence in a stimulus that contains an argument is necessarily a premise or a conclusion. I mention this because many students mistakenly assume that if a statement in an argument isn't a conclusion, then it must be a premise.

A premise is a statement that is used to support the conclusion of the argument. Some statements merely provide context or "background information" in order to understand the argument, but don't actually support the conclusion.

Other statements (such as the claim of some art collectors in this argument) actually describe the opposing view. In other words, it is the view that the argument is attacking/opposing. These statements are not premises, and any answer that refers to them as a premise of the main argument would be incorrect.