#12 - Surrealist: Many artists mistakenly think

[Kdup]

Hi Powerscore,

So, this question was pretty challenging for me. I selected "C' for the answer. I isolated the conclusion that " Using the power of artistic representation solely to preserve and reinforce objects that would exist even without artists is an ironic waste. So, I interpreted that meaning that artists should not base all of their art work on representation that is already present. The stimulus langue was a little wordy for me to digest.

[nicholaspavic]

Hi Kdup,

Well done isolating that conclusion which you always need to do for Main Point questions. And yes, this question is quite wordy. Here, Answer Option (C) speaks in terms of "representation" but not in terms of within and outside the psyche which the conclusion does. Additionally, Answer Option (C) states that an artist should not "all their work" which is an additional reason to disqualify this answer. There is no such comparative language to be found in the stimulus. Answer (A) states "An artist’s work should not merely represent objects from outside the psyche." It captures that distinction between within vs outside the psyche and is therefore correct.

Thanks for the great question and I hope this helps!

[Sambenz]

I quickly read through the stimulus, and tried to approximate what it was saying because I didn't really understand what it meant. Only after reading it countless times while reviewing the answer did I really understand what was being said. I felt it was really hard to parse the meaning of the first sentence.

This is an easier to understand first sentence: Artists mistakenly think they should only represent physical objects (outside the psyche).

Also, what makes this difficult is that the conclusion is not stated very clearly. I found it quite hard to effectively ut through all the flowery language.

[blade21cn]

A quick question: Isn't (A) an inference of the conclusion? Specifically, the conclusion states that some artists are mistaken in their thinking (a factual description), but (A) contains normative language "should not."

In addition, generally speaking, what kind of language can support a "should" conclusion, assuming there's no normative language in the premise(s)? Thanks!

[Jeremy Press]

Hi blade,

I wouldn't call answer choice A an inference based on the first sentence. Instead, it's a restatement that means the same thing. Any time I say some person (or group) is mistaken or wrong about a particular claim, I'm also committing to the logical opposite of that claim. Example: "People who say all lawyers are bad at math are wrong." I'm not just saying the people who say that have made a cognitive mistake. I'm saying that not all lawyers are bad at math. In fact, if I re-framed the statement to split it in two: "People say all lawyers are bad at math. But not all lawyers are bad at math," I've said the exact same thing (though in a much less efficient way).

So in this case, "Many artists mistakenly think that models need be taken only from outside the psyche," is the same as to say, "Many artists think models need be taken only from outside the psyche. But models need to (i.e. should) be taken from more than just what is outside the psyche." It's true that answer choice A doesn't refer directly to what many artists think, but was that really the meat of the claim anyway? No, as the premise shows (which goes toward proving artists need to look beyond what is outside the psyche).

A "should" statement can be backed by any facts that support the correctness or appropriateness of taking the action recommended in the "should" statement. Will it be perfectly valid? Not always (not here), but that's not really our main concern in a Main Point question.

I hope this helps!

Jeremy