PT1.S3.Q25 - on the basis of their statements

NotMyNameNotMyName Alum Member Sage ⭐
edited June 2017 in Logical Reasoning 5320 karma

**Point at Issue

Argument Summary:**

S: An owner of a work of art have the ethical right to destroy that artwork if (1) they find it morally/visually distasteful or (2) caring for it becomes inconvenient. This right to destroy is given by virtue of ownership alone.

J: Owners of unique works of art do not have the moral right to destroy. Additionally, unique works that are of aesthetic or historical value belong to posterity and must be preserved.

Prephrase:

The overlap between these two deals with only unique artwork. Dogs Playing Poker is out of scope because J says nothing about /Unique pieces.

Answer Choices:

A) I quickly eliminated this under timed conditions and did not mark for BR but it is definitely correct. The key piece of this AC is “for that reason alone”. If, for example, your father was a prominent historical figure of whom portraits are rare, then you may not have the right to destroy based on J’s comments. Although S would argue for your right to destroy. Correct.

B ) This may be attractive to some who confuse “posterity” with “public viewing”. We could probably say that S agrees with this statement, but can we say J disagrees with it? I don’t think so. He doesn’t speak about public viewing and the bit about “belonging to posterity” doesn’t necessarily imply that either. Eliminate.

C) “Seldom”. Neither says anything about frequency. Eliminate.

D) “Not unique”. Eliminate. S’s statement includes this set of objects but J’s does not.

E) I chose this under timed conditions. “Legally” should have tipped me off that I had made an error. Replace “legally” with “morally” or “ethically” (morals /= ethics but it would be a reasonable shift in terms) and this could be correct. Eliminate.

Comments

  • fmihalic2fmihalic2 Free Trial Member
    266 karma

    @jkatz1488 LSAT 01....throwback.

    It appears that you and I got different prephases. I prephased that they disagree about whether or not owners have the wright to destroy artwork ONLY because they own it. That's what the second person is refuting.

    When I did this under timed conditions the nature of choice A initially threw me way off but on a second run through I realized that it was clearly correct.

  • NotMyNameNotMyName Alum Member Sage ⭐
    5320 karma

    @fmihalic2 Ya I am easing back into LR and RC after 8 weeks of fool proofing games. Not a terrible performance but definitely rusty.

    I should have been more specific in that prephrase. The passages for each POV are fairly short and to the point. Looks like we came at it from difference directions and neither of us really captured the full overlap. The disagreement is in the right to destroy unique works of art which we own.

  • Rigid DesignatorRigid Designator Alum Member
    edited October 2017 1091 karma

    I took the exact same bait as you @jkatz1488 - I chose E during a timed run.

    Worse though, I positively eliminated A and I spent all of 27 seconds on the question in total!

    My mental pre-phrase for the question was (roughly): the issue between S and J is that historically or aesthetically noteworthy works ought to be preserved, regardless of what their owners want.

    I was baited to presume that an "unflattering portrait of someone's father" is not an historically valuable work ("it's just someone's Dad" my mind said) and is thus not the right kind of art that is at issue between J and S. Further, because the work is unflattering this made me subconsciously process the painting as being a bad painting, i.e. one that lacked aesthetic value. So I eliminated A almost instantly. The lesson here is not not get duped by the framing of the example. Even an unflattering portrait of King Henry VIII is an unflattering portrait of someone's father!

  • Object Class EuclidObject Class Euclid Member
    10 karma

    I hate this question because it asks you to assume A LOT! J was talking about Unique pieces of art with historicalor aesthetic value AC A is talking about a portrait of someone's father. In order to have J disagree about destroying it You have to assume that that portrait has historical or aesthetic value (Which the AC does not provide) because it is just someone's father without either of those 2 qualities then you should be able to destroy it according to J's argument. Can someone explain this to me please?

Sign In or Register to comment.