#16 - There are already more great artworks in the world

[lsatfighter]

Thank you for the explanation, I appreciate it. In this thread, lsatnoobie mentioned that there is a similar question in PT 71 which talks about drought/water, but unfortunately, I was unable to find it. Do you know where I could find that question or any other similar questions?

[Stephanie Oswalt]

Thank you for the explanation, I appreciate it. In this thread, lsatnoobie mentioned that there is a similar question in PT 71 which talks about drought/water, but unfortunately, I was unable to find it. Do you know where I could find that question or any other similar questions?

Hi lsatfighter!

Unfortunately, we couldn't find the question lsatnoobie was referencing either. There is no question in PT71 that talks about drought/water, so we don't know if there would be any similar questions either.

Thanks!

[haganskl]

Hello. I was wondering if this flaw falls under one of the common flaw types. How about error in computation and division?

Assumes that because some people have access, all people have access?

Or would I be committing the error mentioned in the explanation above which says
“The key is to not challenge the truthfulness of the premises, but the logic used to draw the conclusion from them.”

Thanks in advance for taking my question.

[Vicky7411]

I had trouble understanding the conclusion for this stimulus. In this case I interpreted it to mean that contemporary artists believe that their works enable people to feel more fulfilled than all other art from the past. So the author of the stimulus says, no you're wrong because the over-abundance of artistic works we have can satisfy any taste, so your work cannot satisfy people more than the other art we have. That's why I chose E. I thought the author was assuming that other art is placing a limit on how much contemporary art can fulfill you compared to other art.


Now I think the conclusion means that contemporary artists believe that their works enable people to feel more fulfilled than if their works did not exist. I saw in another post that the word "otherwise" in conditional reasoning means "if not." What is the meaning of otherwise in in a non-conditional context on the LR section?

[Luke Haqq]

Hi haganskl!

I could see an argument for categorizing this as an error in computation and division (e.g., making a conclusion about a whole based on information about the parts). Here, you suggest "because some people have access, all people have access"--I don't think this is necessarily a matter of challenging the truthfulness of the premises, so much as it is making a claim that isn't necessarily supported by the stimulus. From the information given alone, it's possible that nobody has access to all of the artwork in the world--perhaps it's all locked away somewhere, the stimulus doesn't say. Given the lack of further information one way or the other, I probably won't categorize this one necessarily as an error in computation and division.

Another possibility could be the broad category of "errors in use of evidence," and perhaps the subcategory of questions where "some evidence against a position is taken to prove that the position is false" (this comes from Lesson 7). Here, there isn't any explicit evidence that people are able to access all the great works of art that currently exist. The stimulus thus might be seen as taken as using "some evidence" (the evidence being numerous great works of art in existence already) "against a position" (the position being that of contemporary artists who think their art helps people be aesthetically fulfilled) "to prove the position is false" (the stimulus claims the contemporary artists are mistaken).

[Luke Haqq]

Hi Vicki7411!

I can definitely address the conclusion as well as answer choice (E) in explaining this one further.

On determining how "otherwise" is being used, it's important to look to the closest clause/variable/subject being modified by the word. Here, the sentence is: "Thus, contemporary artists, all of whom believe that their works enable many people to feel more aesthetically fulfilled than they otherwise could, are mistaken." "Otherwise" seems to be modifying aesthetic feeling--in other words, "Thus, contemporary artists, all of whom believe that their works enable many people to feel more aesthetically fulfilled than they otherwise could [aesthetically feel], are mistaken."

Regarding answer choice (E), that answer choice states that the flaw is that the stimulus "presumes, without providing justification, that the number and variety of great artworks already in the world affects the amount of aesthetic fulfillment derivable from any contemporary artwork." One problem with this answer choice is that one must take the information given in the stimulus as true, including the sentence, "There are already more great artworks in the world than any human being could appreciate in a lifetime." If one is taking the sentences themselves in the stimulus as true (even if the author reaches an incorrect conclusion from them), then a flaw in such a case won't be that the author is assuming the truth of those sentences. Another problem is that it speaks to the stimulus making a presumption about the "number and variety" of great artworks; the stimulus, however, doesn't specifically mention the number and variety of great artworks (maybe a large number exist but not a large variety, or vice versa). Lastly, one could argue that there is some justification provided for the claim about the relationship between existing great art and the possibility of aesthetic fulfillment--namely, the justification is that this existing great art is more "than any human being could appreciate in a lifetime."

By contrast, answer choice (D) gets to the fundamental flaw that the stimulus misses a potential problem about access. Just because these great artworks exist, there's no information in the stimulus establishing that people are able to view them (perhaps most of them are locked away in vaults, or kept in private collections, or perhaps most people live in areas too impoverished to have art museums). However, if there were a contemporary artist with art appreciated by people "whose access to the great majority of other artworks is severely restricted," then this shows how just because great works exist doesn't mean everyone can view and be aesthetically fulfilled by them; this acknowledges the existence of those great works that are more than anyone can appreciate in a lifetime (it takes the information from the stimulus as true), but it shows how the conclusion of the stimulus (that artists are mistaken in thinking they can provide aesthetic fulfillment) does not follow from this. Answer choice (D) suggests that perhaps contemporary artists can provide aesthetic fulfillment because, taking the information from the stimulus as true, there's a problem of access to great works that they are able to surmount.

[Coleman]

Seriously, I know this is a forum we just post questions, but Adam's buffet analogy is a masterpiece that is the best of the best I've ever learned in my entire LSAT studying. I was deeply touched upon reading the first sentence in the last paragraph "That buffet is all the great artwork in the world." I was smitten by the last punchline and felt like I'm reading one of the SCOTUS opinions in the landmark case. It is such a constitutional analogy that nobody could pose a dissenting opinion. I greatly appreciate your holistic approach to the matter, your honor.

[mikeross1234]

I am still a bit confused. For D to be correct, don't we need a connection between what is appreciated and what is aesthetically fulfilling? Are we just assuming that feeling aesthetically fulfilling is equivalent to appreciating art?

[MaxFred25]

I am still a bit confused. For D to be correct, don't we need a connection between what is appreciated and what is aesthetically fulfilling? Are we just assuming that feeling aesthetically fulfilling is equivalent to appreciating art?

Hey Mike. I'm not a PowerScore tutor, but I think I may be able to help you out.

From my reading of the stimulus, it looks like the author themself equates the two in the first sentence. When the author states "[t]here are already more great artworks in the world than any human being could appreciate in a lifetime, works capable of satisfying virtually any taste imaginable," he is saying that these works, which can be appreciated, can satisfy (or fulfill) any taste imaginable (including aesthetic tastes). In this sense, D is correct as it provides a scenerio that the author overlooks.

It's also important to realize that the author's claim is that there are more works than are needed to provide aesthetic fulfillment to an individual (implying that no single work is necessary to gain said fulfillment, because there are others that can do the same), and thus these contemporary artists - who say their works may provide said fulfillment that cannot be provided by other works - are all incorrect. Answer choice D, then, provides a scenerio in which there possibly is not, in fact, access to the plethora of works the author posits, and thus that an individual may run out of works to appreciate (or gain aesthetic fulfillment from) within their lifetime. Therefore, in this scenerio, the contemporary artist's works may provide more aesthetic fulfillment to an individual than possible without that artist's work.

I hope this helps, and if my reasoning is flawed, I hope a tutor will correct me.

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

I agree with you, Max. The flaw here lies between the premise that there are more great works of art than anyone could "appreciate," satisfying anyone's taste, and the conclusion, stating that therefore there is no more need for new great works of art. Answer choice (D) points out a flaw, that just because the artwork might exist, does not mean that every person has access to it.

Answer choice (D) does a good job of describing this error. If not everyone can access pleasing art, the conclusion that all contemporary artists are mistaken regarding the value or importance of their work is incorrect. We know this is a bit of how it works in real life. Art is difficult for the global majority of people to access and appreciate.

Keep up the great work!