LSAT 136 | Section 4 | Logical Reasoning: Q5

LR Question 5 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: A famous artist once claimed that all great art…

QUESTION TYPE: Main Point

CONCLUSION: The great artist was wrong to say that all great art imitates nature, OR great music is not always great art.

REASONING: Most great music doesn’t imitate nature or anything at all.

ANALYSIS: This is a good example of how arguments don’t need to explicitly state their conclusions.

The author’s point is that the great artist was wrong. His evidence is a fact that contradicts the premise.

Artist’s Claim: Great art ➞ Imitates Nature
Author’s evidence: Some great music does not imitate nature

Actually, I simplified that a bit. The right answer introduces a bit more nuance.

It’s possible that great music is not always great art. If true, then it could be that the artist is correct, and any great music that doesn’t imitate nature is not great art.

___________

1. Nonsense. The author didn’t say whether music is good or bad.
2. CORRECT. This is true. If great music is great art, then the artist is wrong, because great music doesn’t always imitate nature. If the artist is right, then great music is sometimes not great art.
3. The author never mentioned great paintings or sculpture.
4. The author never said whether or not it’s possible to imitate all of nature.
5. This would be true if the artist was correct, and if great music is necessarily correct.