Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The argument discusses a famous artist's claim that all great art imitates nature. However, the author points out that most great music does not imitate anything, such as ocean waves or animal sounds. Because of this, the argument concludes that either:
The artist’s claim is incorrect, or most great music is not actually great art since it doesn’t imitate nature.
The artist’s claim is incorrect, or most great music is not actually great art since it doesn’t imitate nature.
Identify Conclusion
The artist’s claim is incorrect, or most great music is not actually great art since it doesn’t imitate nature.
A
Music is inferior to the other arts.
The author does not say whether certain kinds of art are inferior to others. This argument is solely focused on the famous artist’s claim.
B
Either the artist’s claim is incorrect, or most great music is not great art.
This reflects the conflict between the famous artist’s claim and the premise that most great music does not imitate nature. Thus, either the famous artist is wrong, or most music is not great art because it does not imitate nature.
C
Like some great music, some great painting and sculpture may fail to imitate nature.
The argument does not talk about painting or sculpture. It is focused on the relationship between great art and music.
D
Some elements of nature cannot be represented adequately by great art.
This is not discussed in the argument and does not receive any support. The argument centers on what conclusions can be drawn from famous artist’s argument, given that most great music does not imitate anything at all.
E
Sounds that do not imitate nature are not great music.
The author directly contradicts this by acknowledging that most great music does not imitate nature. The famous artist *may* believe this, but it is certainly not the main conclusion of this argument.