PrepTest 120, Section 3, Question 17
Art critic: Abstract paintings are nonrepresentational, and so(51 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(11 more words not shown)
- AAbstract painting cannot(4 more words not shown)
- BUnless people view(9 more words not shown)
- COnly art that(9 more words not shown)
- DPaintings that fail(11 more words not shown)
- EThe interplay of(14 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Could shapes and colors still communicate a political message?
The critic starts by limiting an abstract painting's worth to color, texture, and form. That already makes me pause. What about who painted it? People might value a work partly because of its creator. But the argument soon turns to a more specific claim: abstract painting can never be politically significant.
The critic says political action requires a clearly understandable representation of social injustice. My first reaction is to wonder about a metaphor. Imagine a group of circles shutting out one diamond. Could that arrangement communicate exclusion even without a realistic picture of people? I'm questioning whether the critic's description of abstract art rules out every way of communicating the relevant idea.
What we’re looking for
The question asks for a required assumption. Initially, I'd look for a connection between the nonrepresentational character of the art and its inability to communicate social injustice clearly. That's where my objection has focused. Let's see whether the choices expose that gap or another step the critic has taken for granted.
Working the answers
- A
No action of any kind is much broader than the political action under discussion. An abstract painting might prompt someone to buy a print, try painting, or walk over for a closer look. None of that would conflict with the critic's claim about political significance. The argument doesn't require that abstract art leave everyone entirely inactive.
- B
This judges the significance of people's political activity, while the conclusion judges an art form. Someone's political action could matter a great deal without that person first seeing an artistic representation of injustice. The critic's proposed requirement concerns what a painting must do to spur action, not what every person must view for their actions to count.
- C
Significant art is broader than politically significant art. The critic can allow a painting to be artistically important because of color, texture, or form while denying it political significance. C would rule out all other kinds of artistic significance unless the art prompts opposition to injustice. That is more than the argument needs.
- DCorrect
This catches a different jump from the one I first focused on. Even if we grant that abstract paintings cannot move viewers to political action, why does that mean they cannot be politically significant? Perhaps a painting could change someone's political understanding without prompting action.
D closes that opening: paintings that don't move viewers to political action cannot be politically significant. The critic needs that connection to get from a claim about action to the conclusion about significance. A required assumption needn't solve every concern we had while reading; this one supplies a step the conclusion depends on.
- E
The argument doesn't need to deny that color, texture, and form also contribute to the worth of representational paintings. Both kinds of art might be assessed partly through those qualities. That comparison doesn't connect an inability to prompt political action with a lack of political significance.
More Necessary Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Necessary Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.