Self-study
Support There are already more great artworks in the world than any human being could appreciate in a lifetime, works capable of satisfying virtually any taste imaginable. █████ ████████████ ████████ ███ ██ ████ ███████ ████ █████ █████ ██████ ████ ██████ ██ ████ ████ █████████████ █████████ ████ ████ █████████ ██████ ███ █████████
Argument Summary
Contemporary artists believe their works enable many people to feel more aesthetically fulfilled than they otherwise could. The author thinks these artists are wrong. Why? Because there are already more great artworks in the world than any person could appreciate in a lifetime, and those existing works are capable of satisfying virtually any taste. In the author's mind, this means contemporary art isn't adding anything that people couldn't already get from what's out there.
Put plainly, the author is saying: "There's already enough great art for everyone. So no contemporary artist is actually making anyone's life better by creating new art."
Existing ≠ Accessible
The author assumes that because enough great art exists in the world to satisfy any taste, people can actually access that art. But those are two very different things.
Imagine there's a painting in a private collection in Seoul that would be perfect for your taste. It exists. It could theoretically satisfy you. But you've never seen it and probably never will. Now imagine a contemporary artist in your city creates something that speaks to you in the same way. That artist's work can genuinely make you more aesthetically fulfilled than you otherwise would have been, because the "replacement" art the author points to was never actually available to you.
🌍 All Great Artworks in the World
Your city
🖼️🎨🎭
accessible to you
Private collections
🖼️🖼️🖼️🖼️
exists but inaccessible
Distant museums
🎨🎨🖼️🖼️🎭
exists but inaccessible
Removing contemporary art from "your city" might leave a gap, even though replacements exist elsewhere.
The author's argument treats the world's total supply of great art as though it's a single pool everyone can draw from equally. But art doesn't have to be like that. Access can depend on where you live, what's shown in your local galleries, what's affordable, and what you happen to encounter. That's why contemporary artists might actually be putting art within reach of many people, even if equivalent art technically exists somewhere else in the world.
16.
The argument is most vulnerable ██ █████████ ██ ███ ███████ ████ ██
a
overlooks the possibility ████ ███ ███ ████████████ ███████ ███████ ████ █████ █████ ██████ ████ ██████ ██ ████ ████ █████████████ █████████ ████ ████ █████████ █████
The argument doesn't overlook this. The stimulus explicitly states that
b
presumes, without providing ██████████████ ████ ████ █████ ██████ ███ ████████ ██ ████ ███ ████ ██ ██████████ ████ █████ ████████
The argument isn't about whether people want to go out and appreciate art. It's about whether contemporary art enables more aesthetic fulfillment than people would otherwise have. Even if most people never bother visiting museums, that wouldn't affect the author's reasoning. The author is making a claim about what could fulfill people, not about whether people are motivated to seek out that fulfillment.
c
presumes, without providing ██████████████ ████ ███ █████ ██ ██ ███████ ███████ ██ ███ ██████ ██ █████ █████ ██████ ██████████ ██
The argument never takes a position on what determines the "value" of an artwork. It's focused on whether contemporary art makes people more aesthetically fulfilled than they would be without it. That's a claim about the audience's experience, not about the artwork's worth. Even if an artwork's value were completely independent of human appreciation, the author's argument about people's fulfillment would be unaffected.
d
overlooks the possibility ████ ███ ████ ██ ██ █████ ███ ████████████ ██████ ██ ███████████ ██ ████ ██████ █████ ██████ ██ ███ █████ ████████ ██ █████ ████████ ██ ████████ ██████████
This points to the gap the author overlooks. The author reasons that because there are already enough great artworks to satisfy any taste, contemporary art isn't making anyone more fulfilled. But this reasoning works only if people can actually access all that existing art. (D) raises the possibility that many people's access to the great majority of existing artworks is severely restricted. For those people, a contemporary artist's work that is accessible to them might be the only way they encounter art that suits their taste. If you remove that contemporary artist's work, then those people would lose fulfillment they can't replace, because the supposed substitutes are locked in private collections or displayed in museums halfway around the world.
Notice that (D) only needs to show that at least one contemporary artist's work does this for many people. That's enough, because the author's conclusion claims that all contemporary artists are mistaken in believing their works enable many people to feel more fulfilled. If even one artist isn't mistaken, the conclusion is wrong.
e
presumes, without providing ██████████████ ████ ███ ██████ ███ ███████ ██ █████ ████████ ███████ ██ ███ █████ ███████ ███ ██████ ██ █████████ ███████████ █████████ ████ ███ ████████████ ███████
Pay attention to the word "affects." (E) is saying the author assumes that the existence of lots of great art changes how much fulfillment you get from a contemporary artwork. Like, a contemporary painting would somehow become less beautiful to you just because the Mona Lisa exists somewhere. That's not what the author is arguing.
The author isn't saying existing art changes your experience of contemporary art. The author is saying existing art could replace contemporary art. The argument is: "You could get the same fulfillment from art that already exists, so you don't need contemporary art to feel fulfilled." That's a claim about whether substitutes are available, not about one artwork changing the experience of another. And the real problem with that reasoning, as (D) identifies, is that those supposed substitutes might not be accessible to you.