#22 - Laurie: In a democracy, public art should bring people

[Administrator]

Please post your questions below!

[ser219]

Hi, I was originally torn between B and C on this question. I can see why C is correct. Could someone please explain why B is wrong?

[Jeremy Press]

Hi ser,

Answer choice B is incorrect here, because it refers to what people with radically different opinions "can enjoy and support," but that isn't specifically what Laurie and Elsa disagree on the impossibility of. Laurie thinks public art should (and, by extension, that it's possible for public art to) express a consensus on a subject or help people reconcile their differences/recognize that no opinion is definitive. Elsa thinks it's impossible for people with radically different opinions to be brought together in these specific ways. But neither speaker discusses whether such people could all "enjoy" (derive some pleasure from) or "support" (i.e. contribute monetarily or otherwise to) public art. Thus, we cannot know with certainty the speakers' opinions on answer choice B, and it is not something we have "support" for their disagreement about.

I hope this helps!

Jeremy

[whylawguy]

Can you explain where you see the "criterion for success" being discussed?

[Jeremy Press]

Hi whylawguy,

Sure! In Laurie's argument, it's right up front in the first sentence, where she states that public art "should bring people together." You can tell it's her criterion for success, because in her premise she says that public art's creation of "only acrimony" (instead of bringing people together) means it's "failed in its task" (i.e., it's not successful).

In Elsa's argument, a different criterion is suggested for at least certain circumstances: where "people hold radically different opinions, public art should emphasize that (i.e. emphasize those differences)." The criterion for success of public art in those circumstances would thus be how well such art emphasizes the radically different opinions that people hold.

I hope this helps!

Jeremy

[ashpine17]

Could I say B was implied by the author of passage A since she did state that public art creates only acrimony and not that consensus she was speaking of as the ideal which implies to me that there must have been at least one work of public art that didn't express a consensus. But I didn't think the author mentioned whether this was a possibility.

[ashpine17]

And why is E incorrect? Is there a difference between stating what should be the case and what is wise? I read this choice and thought A would agree and B would disagree because such a goal is impossible.

[gwlsathelp]

I wrote off C because Elsa does not mention "in a democracy". She only talks about public art. I figured that this was a question that only addressed one speaker because of that. How does one go about that?

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi ashpine and gw,

For answer choice (C), Elsa is talking about public art in general, which would also include public art in a democracy. Her statement is broader than Laurie's but includes the idea of public art in a democracy.

Ash, you were exactly right on answer choice (E). There's a big difference between what is possible to do and what is wise to do. For answer choice (B), we don't know what if anything Laurie thinks is possible, or what specifically Elsa thinks is impossible.

Hope that helps!