LR Question 16 Explanation, by LSATHacks
QUESTION TEXT: There are already more great artworks in the world…
QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Reasoning
CONCLUSION:Contemporary artists are wrong that their works make people feel more aesthetic fulfillment.
REASONING: There are already more artworks than any human could appreciate in a lifetime.
ANALYSIS: To appreciate art, you typically have to look at it. And that requires standing in front of the painting. There is a vast amount of art available, but it is spread all over the world. In museums and in private collections. So it may be difficult for people to find aesthetic satisfaction even if in theory there is more art than anyone could ever want.
(To appreciate a great artwork, a photo usually isn’t sufficient. We certainly can’t assume that a great artwork is available for aesthetic fulfillment merely because it can be photographed.)
The author is not saying contemporary art is unfulfilling. Instead, they’re saying that we’re already at our maximum potential for fulfillment due to the great quantity of existing art. As we are at potential, contemporary art can’t give us more than we already have.
___________
- This answer contradicts the stimulus. The author clearly said all artists believe their work can help people find aesthetic fulfillment.
- The author didn’t say that people will find aesthetic fulfillment. The author said they could.
- The author never talked about what makes an artwork valuable.
- CORRECT. This is enough to prove the argument wrong. The author said all artists are wrong. So even one artist who provides aesthetic fulfillment disproves the author. (The idea is that not everyone has access to great art, even if in theory there is more than enough art out there.)
- This is the most tempting wrong answer. The author didn’t say that contemporary works can’t be fulfilling. Instead, the author said that contemporary works can’t increase the potential for fulfillment we already have. We’re already at our max potential for fulfillment due to the massive quantity of existing artworks.
Hi, I'm Graeme Blake
Founder of LSAThacks; I scored a 177 on the LSAT.
I created the LSAT Mastery Seminars, which are part of the Ultimate LSAT Prep Bundle
If you like the explanations you're reading I'm 100% confident you'll enjoy the courses. Satisfaction guaranteed.
---------
Updates:
For updates, sign up for my email list. I update whenever I have new posts.
I was really confused between D and E and eventually chose D by POE. My initial prephase was an issue the verbs in the evidence and conclusion. The author says that the great works are “capable” of satisfying any human tastes. However you can’t conclude in this basis that contemporary artists’ works dont “enable” many people to feel aesthetical fulfillment. I was looking for an answer that said something along the lines of “just because great works can satisfy tastes doesn’t mean thst many people actually feel those tastes.” Am I reading too much into this? Thank you!
While it’s important to be aware of term shifts between the evidence and conclusion, “enable” just means to make something possible. So, there isn’t enough of a difference between “enable” and “capable” to label that a term shift (in the context of the LSAT that is–we might have a very different discussion if this came up in a philosophy class). Similarly, if something satisfies your aesthetic taste, that’s close enough to feeling “aesthetically fulfilled” that I think it’s splitting hairs to base your pre-phrase on that shift.
Remember, on the LSAT we’re able to make common-sense assumptions. If two terms are basically synonymous, the correct answer choice is very unlikely to focus on the extremely subtle difference between the two. Focusing on these kinds of differences will also distract you from more glaring issues in the argument.
Hi Wenwen,
As Graeme pointed out, (E) is the most tempting wrong answer. (E) says the argument assumes that the number and variety of artworks can affect the amount of fulfillment that someone can get from contemporary art. But it doesn’t assume this – it assumes that there is enough art already existing to fulfill everyone, and it assumes that everyone can see this existing art. Because the statement in (E) is NOT something the argument assumes, the argument cannot be vulnerable to criticism on these grounds, and (E) is incorrect.
(D) gets at the issue. The argument assumes that there is no possibility that any contemporary artist could reach people who haven’t been fulfilled by existing works. If a single contemporary artist can do this, the authors argument falls apart, so (D) is correct.
Hope that helps!
I think the explanation is wrong, because in the answer E, it only says that whether it could affect the amount, which sounds weaker that could not let contemporary works fullfilling.