Linguist: One group of art critics claims that postimpressionist paintings are not really art and so should be neither studied nor displayed. Another group of critics disagrees, insisting that these paintings are works of art. But since the second group grants that there are paintings that are not works of art and should therefore be ignored in the manner suggested by the first group, their disagreement is not over the meaning of the word “art.”

Summarize Argument
The linguist concludes that the two groups of critics aren’t disagreeing over what “art” means. This is because the two groups agree that there are paintings that really aren’t “art,” and therefore don’t merit serious attention. Their disagreement is instead over the postimpressionist paintings at hand.

Identify Argument Part
The referenced text supports the claim that the two groups aren’t disagreeing over the word “art.” Since both groups grant that some paintings aren’t art, they must agree that art isn’t all-encompassing. The disagreement must therefore be about something else.

A
It is a contention that the argument purports to show is the main point of disagreement between the two groups of critics mentioned.
The linguist states that the two groups don’t disagree over the idea that some paintings aren’t art. The second group, like the first, believes some paintings should be dismissed as non-art.
B
It is cited as a commonly accepted reason for accepting a hypothesis for which the argument offers independent evidence.
There’s nothing about “commonly accepted” in this argument. Nor is there any independent evidence for the hypothesis that the two groups don’t disagree over the meaning of “art.”
C
It is a claim whose acceptance by critics who differ on other issues is cited by the argument as evidence of its truth.
The linguist isn’t arguing that the referenced text is actually true. He’s simply pointing out that the two groups agree that not all paintings are works of art.
D
It is a claim about the nature of art that according to the argument accounts for disputes that only appear to concern the aesthetic merits of certain types of paintings.
This answer choice is incredibly convoluted. Luckily, the linguist says nothing about aesthetic merits. He also doesn’t generalize about the types of disputes that generally ensue from claims about the nature of art. We can eliminate.
E
It is a claim whose acceptance by both of the two disputing parties is cited as evidence for a conclusion the argument draws about the disagreement.
The referenced text is evidence that both parties accept that art has clear limits, hence why some paintings can be ignored. From there, the linguist concludes that the two disputing parties aren’t disagreeing over the meaning of the word “art.”

8 comments

Biologists found that off the northeast coast of a certain country the P-plankton population has recently dropped 10 percent. Additionally, fish species X, Y, and Z are beginning to show extraordinarily high death rates in the region. Since these species of fish are known to sometimes eat P-plankton, biologists believe the two phenomena are connected, but the exact nature of the connection is unknown. No other species in the ecosystem appear to be affected.

"Surprising" Phenomenon
Why have the populations of P-plankton, fish X, fish Y, and fish Z, all gone down recently, even though no other species in the ecosystem has experienced a decrease in population?

Objective
The correct answer should tell us about something recent and harmful to P-plankton, fish X, fish Y, and fish Z. The correct answer should not be something that we would expect to kill members of other species.

A
Several major pharmaceutical companies in the region have been secretly dumping large amounts of waste into the ocean for many years.
The dumping has been going on for “many” years, so it wouldn’t explain a recent decrease in population. Also, we’d expect the harmful effects of dumping to damage other species, too, in addition to P-plankton, fish X, fish Y, and fish Z.
B
A new strain of bacteria is attacking P-plankton by destroying their cell walls and is attacking the respiratory systems of fish species X, Y, and Z.
This is something harmful to P-plankton, fish X, fish Y, and fish Z. Note that this bacteria is a “new” strain, which helps explain why the decreased population occurred recently.
C
A powerful toxin in the water is killing off P-plankton by inhibiting their production of a chemical they use in reproduction.
This doesn’t explain why populations of the fish have gone down recently.
D
Fish species X, Y, and Z are all experiencing widespread starvation within the affected region, and the loss of P-plankton is driving their death rates up even higher.
This tells us how loss of P-plankton affects the fish. But it doesn’t explain why the P-plankton population decreased recently.
E
Global warming has changed the climatic conditions of the ocean all along the northeast coast of the country.
We’d expect harmful effects of global warming, if any, to affect other species in addition to P-plankton, fish X, fish Y, and fish Z.

22 comments

Nightbird is an unsigned painting that some attribute to the celebrated artist Larocque. Experts agree that it was painted in a style indistinguishable from that of Larocque and that if it was not painted by Larocque, it was undoubtedly painted by one of his students. A recent analysis showed that the painting contains orpiment, a pigment never yet found in a work attributed to Larocque. Therefore, the painting must have been done by one of Larocque’s students.

Summarize Argument

The author concludes that Nightbird must have been painted by one of Larocque’s students. He supports this by noting that experts agree that the painting is both in Larocque’s style and was either painted by him or by one of his students. He also points out that the painting contains orpiment, a pigment never found in a painting attributed to Larocque.

Notable Assumptions

The author assumes that the orpiment in Nightbird means it wasn’t painted by Larocque, just because none of his known paintings use the pigment. However, Larocque could have used orpiment in a painting not yet attributed to him. Based on this assumption, the author then assumes that the orpiment in Nightbird must mean it was painted by one of his students.

A
Few of Larocque’s students ever used painting techniques that differed from Larocque’s.

Since few of his students used painting techniques that differed from Larocque’s, and Nightbird “was painted in a style indistinguishable from that of Larocque,” (A) strengthens the conclusion that Nightbird was painted by one of Larocque’s students.

B
Larocque never signed any of his paintings.

The fact that Larocque never signed any of his paintings does not weaken the conclusion that Nightbird was painted by one of his students. Perhaps his students never signed their paintings either.

C
No painting currently recognized as the work of one of Larocque’s students contains orpiment.

The key reason for concluding that Nightbird was painted by a student of Larocque was the orpiment, which paintings attributed to Larocque don’t have. But if none of his students’ paintings contain orpiment either, why should we still conclude that it was painted by one of them?

D
None of Larocque’s students is considered to be an important artist.

The importance of Larocque’s students has nothing to do with the conclusion that one of his students painted Nightbird. As far as we know, an unimportant artist could have painted Nightbird just as easily as an important one.

E
The use of orpiment became more popular in the years after Larocque’s death.

Just because orpiment was more popular after Larocque’s death doesn’t mean that it didn’t exist or that he didn’t use it before his death. It also doesn’t mean that his students, many of whom presumably outlived him, could not also have used orpiment after well after his death.


18 comments