PT113.S3.Q18 > Question

SECTION 1 · rc

PASSAGE 1

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7

PASSAGE 2

Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13

PASSAGE 3

Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21

PASSAGE 4

Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26

SECTION 2 · lr

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26

SECTION 3 · lr

SECTION 4 · lr

Our argument concludes that there are no guidelines for defining objects as art. It supports that conclusion by identifying an attribute called representation, which is present in some art and dependent upon the art’s context. The argument then says there are no guidelines for determining aspects of art that rely on context (including representation), which the argument then stretches into the conclusion that there are no guidelines for defining art.

What if determining whether or not an object has representation is not the only way to identify it as art? Our author never defined representation as a necessary aspect for art; in fact, they told us that only some art has it. They failed to exclude the possibility that other attributes are sufficient for calling something art.

Our conclusion depends on characteristics and relationships associated with representational art; because this answer choice deals with nonrepresentational art, it goes outside the scope of our argument and does not correctly identify a flaw.

Irrelevant. This answer choice goes outside the scope of our argument—we’re dealing with one specific aesthetic property and things that are art, not with other properties or non-art things.

This addresses our argument’s underlying assumption. If aesthetically relevant properties other than representation can qualify something as art, our author’s argument is moot.

Even if this were true, it would not damage our argument. The author is focused on aesthetically relevant properties, not on aesthetically irrelevant ones.

Even if this was true, it would not harm the author’s argument because the author’s argument applies to art, not non-art objects. Moreover, the author never said or implied that for something to be representative, it has to be art.

PrepTest 113 - Section 3 - Question 18

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action