PT28.S1.Q24 - We ought to pay attention only to the intrinsic properties

ArturoRol

Hey guys, I had a difficult time eliminating answer choice C on this one. I do understand why A is correct but I can't 100% eliminate C. Explanations I've come across indicate that C just restates what was already stated in the premises, but I still see some slight gaps that C would seem to fill in, so I'm going to take a stab at what I think is going on here, and was hoping I could get some feedback as to whether there's more to add to my explanation or to confirm that it is sufficient. So here it is:

Basically, this is a sufficient/psuedo sufficient assumption question.

The argument is as follows:
1) We should only pay attention (PA) to intrinsic properties (IP) in art. (PA-->IP)
2) Extrinsic (E) are not relevant (not R) (E-->not R)
3) When looking at a painting (paying attention-->PA) we should look at what is directly presented (DP). (PA-->DP)

Conclusion:
4) What is relevant is not symbolism (not S) but what it directly presents (DP). (R--->not S and DP)

Analysis:
So I see that symbolism is a new term in the conclusion, and I would like to get from R-->not S). I know from "2)" that R-->not E, so I see that adding in not E-->not S would allow the portion of the conclusion, R--->not S to follow via R-->not E-->not S. So that makes sense for A being correct.

However, when I ready the conclusion: "What is really aesthetically relevant, therefore, is not what a painting symbolizes, but what it directly presents to experience," I ignored what was in between the commas and was looking to justify the conclusion, "What is really aesthetically relevant, therefore, is what it directly presents to experience." So I focused on that.

Looking back at the premises, I saw from "1)" that paying attention necessitates intrinsic properties and from "3)" that paying attention also necessitates looking at what is directly presented. But the premises never explicitly connected intrinsic properties to that which is directly presented; it was simply implied.

So going back to the conclusion -- which I qualified thinking that the middle (not S) was extraneous -- I thought that in order to conclude, "What is relevant is what is directly presented (R-->DP), I figured why not make the intrinsic/directly presented connection explicit? So I plugged answer choice C) Relevant-->Intrinsic, leading to (R-->Intrinsic)--->DP.

Where I think I might have gone wrong:
Plugging in Relevant-->Intrinsic still leaves the the original gap between Intrinsic and Directly Presented open. Also, Was answer C already stated in Premise 2) as E-->not R, as the contrapositive of R-->Intrinsic?

The way I was supposed to have thought about it?:

Paying attention leads to looking at only intrinsic properties and paying attention involves only looking at what is directly presented, so there's no leap in concluding that intrinsic properties involve what is directly presented. So it adds nothing to the part of the conclusion that what is Relevant are only instrinsic properties.

However, connecting Relevant to whatever is not symbolic is an open gap that never connected Extrinsic properties to being symbolic and hence answer choice A) making this explicit completely (or almost entirely in the case of this being psuedo-sufficient) bridges the gap.

Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.

Admin note: edited title; please use the format of "PT#.S#.Q# - [brief description]"

Admin note: https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-28-section-1-question-24/

Markmark

I believe C is just a sufficiency necessity flaw, right?

jmarmaduke96

I don't think that C is a sufficiency/necessity flaw. If you accept that the sufficient conditions of Premise 1 and C are close enough to be the same, both of them have "only" as the group 2 indicator which makes "intrinsic properties of art" the necessary condition of paying attention to it/it being relevant. I very well could be reading it wrong, but I don't see the S/N flaw there.

Also, I noticed what you were saying about the conclusion, how it almost seems like there are two halves to the conclusion. I think that for this question, especially since it is older, they may be assuming that there is a relatively clean break between the ideas of symbolism and experience. If something is perceived and it is not directly experienced then it is symbolized. If something is perceived and it is not symbolized then it must be directly experienced. Making that assumption helps the conclusion to make more sense. I believe the split they are going after is the same between intrinsic and extrinsic qualities. Given that this is an SA question and not a PSA question, I think the test writers have to believe that is implicit otherwise I don't think the argument would be valid.