#13 - An art critic, by ridiculing an artwork, can

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Justify the Conclusion. The correct answer choice is (A)

Once you’ve finished reading the stimulus and determined that this is Justify question, you should
attempt to solve it mechanistically. Although not all Justify can be solved in this manner, it is easy
to apply and often successful. Solving mechanistically entails looking for elements that are present
in a premise but not the conclusion, or vice versa (elements that appear in both are already justified).
The premises here have two elements: artistic criticism and pleasure. The conclusion also contains
two elements: artistic criticism and merit. Referring to criticism is justified since it can be traced
back to the premises, but merit does not appear until the conclusion (note that pleasure and merit
may be related but are clearly not synonymous). Furthermore, the argument disregards pleasure in
the conclusion. Therefore, the simplest way to justify this argument is appropriately connect the
premise-only element (pleasure) with the conclusion-only element (merit). A mechanistic answer
choice will do exactly this.

Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice. Here we see both merit and pleasure, and
we are told that merit depends upon pleasure. Since artistic criticism influences pleasure and merit
depends upon pleasure, this answer justifies that conclusion that merit also depends upon criticism.

Answer choice (B): Adding this answer to the stimulus does not justify the author’s conclusion. It
is unclear how individual, non-critical evaluations of art relates to criticism, pleasure, or merit, and
therefore unclear how this answer would allow the conclusion to be properly drawn.

Answer choice (C): While this is plausible and even consistent with the stimulus, being able to
understand artistic merit is not equivalent to influencing it. The argument suggests that critics not
only know what merit is, but that they can also change it.

Answer choice (D): This answer shows a mechanism by which criticism might be inferred to affect
an individual’s pleasure in an artwork. Reading criticism before viewing an artwork could certainly
have an influence on how the artwork is interpreted. However, this answer does nothing to establish
the connection between the amount of pleasure derived from an artwork and the merit it possesses.
Without such a connection, the conclusion remains unjustified.

Answer choice (E): This answer states an implicit premise of the preceding answer. If this is true,
then it is easier to understand how artistic criticism and the pleasure people take in viewing artwork
are related, but it is still unclear how either of those relate to the merit of an artwork.

[smtq123]

Hi,

As per my understanding, we have the following:
Premise: Critic Evaluation --> Affect Amount of Pleasure
Conclusion: Artwork’s Artistic merit --> Critics Evaluation
Option A: Artwork’s Artistic merit -->Affect Amount of Pleasure

I don't see how option A justifies the conclusion when added with the premise. Appreciate you help to demystify it. Thanks.

[Adam Tyson]

By approaching this one with conditional diagramming, smtq123, you may be missing the underlying causal relationship in the argument. Set aside the diagramming and look instead at cause and effect here: criticism can affect one's pleasure, therefore something other than just the creator of the art can affect merit. There is a gap between "pleasure" and "merit" here - the premises are talking only about pleasure, while the conclusion brings up the wholly new idea of merit. To prove that something other than the artist could affect merit, and knowing that criticism can affect pleasure, we must link pleasure to merit.

If answer A is true, then we get this causal chain:

Criticism affects pleasure, which in turn determines merit, so criticism is one of the things that determines merit. It's not just the artist in control of merit; the critic also can play a part.

Thus, the conclusion that something other than the artist CAN affect merit is justified!

[queenbee]

Hi
The factor that threw me off here was the multiple references to the "critics" appraisal of the artwork. if the "critic" says the art work is terrible...then it then it undermines pleasure. If the "critic" says it's great, then it illicit more pleasure. The stimulus finally states that the art works merit depends on who "critically" evaluate it. I wanted to select A but because there was so much reference to critics, I went with D. Can you suggest a way where I dont fall into this trap?
Thanks!

[Adam Tyson]

One clue to help you here, queenbee, is that critics and criticism are found in both the premises and the conclusion. In most Assumption questions, as well as most Justify and many Strengthen questions, we need to focus on elements that are unique to the premises and to the conclusion, which form a "gap" in the argument. Elements that are common to both are typically not found in the correct answer.

Here, the premises are about pleasure being affected by critics, and the conclusion is about merit being influenced by critics (the people who critically evaluate something are, by definition, critics), so "critics" are already connected and not part of that "gap." Instead, we should be looking to bridge the gap between "pleasure" and "merit," because those are the rogue elements that lack any connection in the argument.