PrepTest 150, Section 2, Question 14
The arousal of anger is sometimes a legitimate(51 more words not shown)
The conclusion of the argument(10 more words not shown)
- AThere are works(13 more words not shown)
- BOnly those works(11 more words not shown)
- CWorks of art(11 more words not shown)
- DNo works of(9 more words not shown)
- EOnly works that(8 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Why can't a work of art make us angry and care about beauty?
Imagine a film about elephant poaching. It wants us to be angry about the killings and to do something: stop buying ivory, donate to a conservation effort, or help protect the animals. That makes the passage's talk of anger and 'concrete intervention' easier to understand. The art is trying to move us to action.
But the filmmaker might also care deeply about beautiful images of the savanna and the elephants. Anger, action, and a concern for beauty could all coexist in the same film. Nothing so far rules that out.
What we’re looking for
The critics say every legitimate artwork has some concern for beauty. To prove them wrong, we need a legitimate artwork without that concern. Showing that some legitimate art aims at anger doesn't get us there unless we add a reason those aims can't coexist. The question asks us to make the conclusion follow, so I'd look for a rule that excludes a concern for beauty from this art aimed at arousing anger.
Working the answers
- A
A work concerned with beauty could fail to be legitimate art. That shows a concern for beauty isn't enough to make a work legitimate, but the critics only claim that legitimate works must have that concern. Both could be true: beauty could be required while other requirements also have to be met. A doesn't give us legitimate art without a concern for beauty.
- B
This supports the critics' requirement instead of disproving it. If only works exclusively concerned with beauty are legitimate, every legitimate work must certainly have some concern for beauty. The exclusivity makes B even stronger than the critics' claim; it doesn't provide the counterexample the author needs.
- C
A secondary concern is still a concern. Our elephant film might care mainly about saving elephants and secondarily about beautiful cinematography. The critics don't insist that beauty be the primary or sole concern. C therefore leaves their claim intact.
- DCorrect
Follow the three steps. Some legitimate art aims to arouse anger. Every legitimate work with that aim calls for intervention. D says works calling for intervention have no concern for beauty. So those legitimate works that aim at anger lack a concern for beauty, proving that the critics' requirement doesn't cover all legitimate art. We don't have to assume every call for intervention aims at anger; the direction the passage gives us is enough.
- E
This would make a call for intervention a requirement for legitimate art. It still doesn't separate intervention from a concern for beauty. A legitimate work could satisfy that new requirement and also care about beautiful images, just as our hypothetical film does. E adds a requirement without creating the conflict the conclusion needs.
More Sufficient Assumption questions
- PrepTest 150, Section 3, Question 12Sufficient Assumption
- Logical Reasoning Drill Set 10, Question 1Sufficient Assumption
- Logical Reasoning Drill Set 12, Question 4Sufficient Assumption
- Logical Reasoning Drill Set 13, Question 1Sufficient Assumption
- Logical Reasoning Drill Set 3, Question 7Sufficient Assumption
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Sufficient Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.