Stimulus Breakdown

Premise 1: we should care about intrinsic properties of art work, not exterior properties of art work (irrelevant to “aesthetic interaction”).

Premise 2: for painting, we should only consider "what's presented in our experience”.

Main Conclusion:

(i) "aesthetic interaction" is "what's presented in our experience",

(ii) "aesthetic interaction"is not "what symbolize".

Analysis

For Conclusion (i), it's kind of safe to say so. After all, Premise 1 infers that "intrinsic properties" is relevant to "aesthetic interaction". And taking into account Premise 2, Conclusion (i) is deduced.

However, for Conclusion (ii), "what symbolize" is a totally new element. So I guess this is where gap lies.

Q&A

Q: Sufficient Assumption

A: let's start with A. Bingo, "what symbolize" appears, and it's connected to "exterior properties", so Conclusion (ii) could be deduced when noting Premise 1.

Interested！