PrepTest 131, Section 3, Question 24
Eighteenth-century European aesthetics was reasonably successful in providing(49 more words not shown)
The reasoning above is most(6 more words not shown)
- Atakes for granted(30 more words not shown)
- Bpresumes, without providing(23 more words not shown)
- Cpresumes, without providing(17 more words not shown)
- Dpresumes, without providing(19 more words not shown)
- Epresumes, without providing(14 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
The old theory worked reasonably well for a long time, then artists made beautiful work that it could not explain. I can accept that as a limitation of the theory. But why would it establish that no complete theory is possible?
Why not expand the theory? We could revise its boundaries to include the new work, or develop a different account that handles both the earlier art and the rebellious art. Whether those attempts would succeed is an open question. The failure of this eighteenth-century framework doesn't settle it.
What we’re looking for
The conclusion goes from one theory being incomplete to completeness being impossible. For the flaw, look for the assumption that this theory is already as comprehensive as any theory could be. Without that limit, work outside its boundaries could be a reason to improve the account rather than abandon the possibility of a complete one.
Working the answers
- A
The argument doesn't rank traditional art as more important than rebellious art. In fact, it treats the rebellious work's beauty as something a complete theory would need to explain. The problem concerns the possible reach of theories, not the relative importance of the art they cover.
- B
The artists could have rebelled because they knew the old theory well. They could have had some other inspiration entirely. Their motives don't determine whether a broader theory could explain their work. B addresses why they created the art rather than what its existence shows about possible theories.
- C
The passage doesn't compare a theory's success in Europe with its success elsewhere. It compares what an existing theory explained with later art that falls outside its boundaries. A geographical restriction is not part of the reasoning.
- D
Art from the 1970s or 1980s could also fall outside the old theory. That would not change the author's basic argument from this theory's limitations to the impossibility of any complete theory. The reasoning does not require the 1960s to supply the only examples it cannot handle.
- ECorrect
“As encompassing as an aesthetic theory can be” means no theory could cover more. The author needs that assumption to turn this theory's failure into a limit on every possible theory. If we could expand it or develop a more inclusive account, its inability to explain the rebellious art would not establish that a complete account is impossible.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.