PT22.S2.Q20 - pieces of music consist of sounds

Accounts Playable

http://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-22-section-2-question-20/
I got this one correct by POE, but I am having a lot of trouble explicitly understanding why E is correct (I was wishy washy with A, but I get why it's wrong). Here is my analysis:

This is a flaw/weaken question.

If it's music, then it has a temporal element since parts of the song are presented over time. However, a painting has no temporal element since parts of the painting are not presented over time. Thus, the viewer's eye has no one path to follow in order to "read" the painting [the "" on read are kind of weird, I think]. As a result, a key difference between listening to music and viewing a painting is that music has a time element while looking at a painting doesn't.

What I am looking for: This argument seemed (at least to me) pretty decent. Temporal order is a necessary condition for music, but it is not for painting. So that seems like an "essential" [necessary] difference between the two. The only flaw that I could see was relating "path" to time. That didn't seem like very good evidence to me.

Answer A: This was my trap answer. I didn't pick it, but I wasted a lot of time eliminating it. The argument doesn't say that you need to be conscious of the passage of time. The passage of time (in and of itself) is the necessary condition for music and not one for a painting. Also, time is an element of the painting and not of the viewer. It is possible that the viewer is looking at his watch the entire time while looking at a painting; that doesn't change the fact that the medium of art (painting) itself doesn't have a temporal element.

Answer B: Who cares about the definition of music/differences between styles.

Answer C: Who cares about their commonalities? Our conclusion is about differences.

Answer Is "reading" a metaphor? Maybe. However, the substance of this answer choice is to say that the flaw is circular reasoning. The argument is not. The "reading" analogy is evidence in support of the conclusion, not a restatement of it.

Answer E: This is it by POE. However, I still am having trouble seeing how this actually attacks the relationship between the premise and conclusion. This answer to me juts flat out contradicts the "path" premise and not the substance of the argument.

c.janson35

I think what's key here is that the argument is conflating having a temporal dimension and having a path. That is, because music is presented in a sequence of notes it has a path that it follows--a certain temporal quality to it. But, it says, paintings have no temporal dimension because there is no path--there is just a picture that it is presented to you. But this is hardly a convincing argument, because it almost seems like the author is saying that, in viewing a painting, you almost absorb it all at once and all together---there would be no other way, in my mind, to have an absence of temporality.

Here's where E becomes relevant. Just because there is an absence of a predetermined path, or the absence of a sequence of notes, doesn't mean that there isn't a temporal dimension to experiencing a painting, especially because your experience of it can change as you adjust your gaze on the various sections of the painting. There's your instantaneous reaction to viewing it, and then it develops more as you move your eyes on a natural path, unique to you, so just because there's not a particular path doesn't mean there isn't a path at all. So, if there is a path, or a sequence to viewing, then this weakens the conclusion because a unique path may still be able to instill a temporality nonetheless. And therein lies the flaw: no fixed path doesn't have to mean no temporal dimension, especially if everyone's eyes follow their own path while viewing.

I hope this helps! Let me know if you have any other questions, this is a tough one.