Self-study
Literature professor: Critics charge that the work of C. F. Providence's best-known follower, S. N. Sauk, lacks aesthetic merit because it employs Providence's own uniquely potent system of symbolic motifs in the service of a political ideal that Providence—and, significantly, some of these critics as well—would reject. ████████ ████ ████ ██ ████ ████████ ████ ██████████ ███ ████ ██ ██████████ █████████ █████ ████ █████████ ████ █████ ██████████ ███████████ ██ ███ ███ ██ ██ █████ ████ █████ █████ ████ ███ ████████ ███ ████ ██████ ██ ██████████ ███████ ████ █████ ██ ███ ████ ████████ ███████ ██ ███ ████████ ████████ ██████ ██ █████████
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
Critics argue that Sauk’s work doesn’t have aesthetic merit, because it uses certain symbolic motifs of an artist that Sauk followed, but to further a political ideal that that artist would disagree with. The author rejects the critics argument, because the critics haven’t shown that the use of the same symbolic motifs for a purpose that the artist would reject would decrease aesthetic merit of Sauk’s work.
Describe Method of Reasoning
The author criticizes the critics’ argument by pointing out that the critics’ premise, even if it’s true, doesn’t provide any support to the critics’ conclusion. The fact Sauk uses the same symbolic motifs hasn’t been shown to affect the aesthetic merit of Sauk’s work.
11.
The literature professor argues that ███ ██████████ █████ ██ ███ ███████ ███ ███ ██████ ████ ████████████ ██ ███ ███████ ████
a
the claims made ██ ███████ ██ ████ ██████████ ███ ██████████
The claim made in support of the critics’ conclusion is that Sauk’s work uses symbolic motifs in service of politics that are different from those of the person Sauk imitated. The author doesn’t disagree with this claim. He disagrees that this claim is relevant to the conclusion.
b
Sauk's work has █████████ █████
The author’s argument doesn’t rely on the grounds that Sauk’s work has aesthetic merit. It relies on the grounds that it hasn’t been shown that imitating symbolic motifs that the original artist would disagree with decreases aesthetic merit of a work.
c
these critics are █████████ ██ █████████ ██████ ██████ █████████ █████
The author never alleges that the critics are motivated by antipathy. Although he acknowlges that the critics would reject Sauk’s politics, that doesn’t mean this difference of political opinion motivates the critics in their argument.
d
the claims made ██ ███████ ██ ████ ██████████ ████ ███ ████ █████ ██ ██ ███████
The claim made in support of the critics’ conclusion is that Sauk’s work uses symbolic motifs in service of politics that are different from those of the person Sauk imitated. The author concedes that this is true (line beginning “Granting...”).
e
the claims made ██ ███████ ██ ████ ██████████ ████ ███ ████ █████ ██ ██ ████████ ██ ██
The author believes the fact Sauk imitated an artist who would disagree with Sauk’s politics hasn’t been shown to decrease aesthetic merit. Thus, it hasn’t been shown to be relevant to the critic’s conclusion that Sauk’s work lacks aesthetic merit.