LSAT 131 – Section 3 – Question 24

LSAT 131 - Section 3 - Question 24

December 2009

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Target time: 1:29

This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question QuickView	Type	Tags	Answer Choices	Curve	Question Difficulty	Psg/Game/S Difficulty	Explanation
PT131 S3 Q24	+LR	Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw Link Assumption +LinkA	A 3% 157 B 21% 161 C 4% 157 D 5% 156 E 68% 167	150 158 166	+Harder	146.026 +SubsectionMedium

Eighteenth-century European aesthetics was reasonably successful in providing an understanding of all art, including early abstract art, until the 1960s, when artists self-consciously rebelled against earlier notions of art. Since the work of these rebellious artists is quite beautiful but outside the bounds of the aesthetic theory then current, there can be no complete theory of aesthetics.

Summarize Argument

The argument concludes that there cannot be any complete theory of aesthetics. This is supported by an example of a time period in the 1960s, when beautiful new art could not be understood by the time period’s current theory of aesthetics.

Identify and Describe Flaw

The argument is flawed because it fails to consider the possibility that another theory of aesthetics could be more complete than the theory current to the 1960s. Even if one specific theory of aesthetics turns out to be incomplete, there might still be some other theory of aesthetics that can provide an understanding of all art.

takes for granted that it is more important for a complete aesthetic theory to account for the beauty of traditional art than for it to account for the beauty of self-consciously rebellious art

The argument doesn’t make any claims about the importance of accounting for a certain kind of beauty over another.

presumes, without providing justification, that artists’ rebellion in the 1960s against earlier notions of art was not guided by their knowledge of eighteenth-century European aesthetic theory

It doesn’t matter to the argument what the reason might have been for the artists’ rebellion in the 1960s.

presumes, without providing justification, that an aesthetic theory developed in one part of the world cannot be applied in another

The argument simply doesn’t claim that an aesthetic theory from one part of the world cannot be applied to another.

presumes, without providing justification, that art from the 1960s is the only art that cannot be adequately addressed by eighteenth-century European aesthetics

The argument doesn’t presume that 1960s art is the only example of art unaccounted for by eighteenth-century European aesthetic theory, but just uses it as an example to show that this aesthetic theory is incomplete.

presumes, without providing justification, that eighteenth-century European aesthetics is as encompassing as an aesthetic theory can be

In concluding that no aesthetic theory can be complete, the argument presumes that no aesthetic theory can be more encompassing than the incomplete eighteenth-century European aesthetic theory. This isn’t supported further, so it’s an unjustified presumption.

LSAT 131 – Section 3 – Question 24

LSAT 131 - Section 3 - Question 24

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 131 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Leave a Reply Cancel