PrepTest 151, Section 2, Question 1
Ullman: Plato argued that because of the harmful(36 more words not shown)
Ullman's argument is most vulnerable(13 more words not shown)
- Awhat musicians intend(11 more words not shown)
- Bthose with the(11 more words not shown)
- Cthere are other,(9 more words not shown)
- Dother forms of(12 more words not shown)
- Eartists who are(14 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Wanting to create beauty doesn't guarantee that the music won't cause harm.
Plato's concern is about what music does to people. Ullman replies with what musicians are trying to do. Those are different questions. A musician could sincerely aim to make something beautiful and still produce music that manipulates listeners' emotions in a harmful way.
Imagine defending drunk driving by saying, 'The driver didn't mean to kill anyone.' That doesn't answer the concern about the danger. We could believe the driver had no intention of hurting someone and still object to driving drunk. Likewise, accepting the musicians' good intentions doesn't settle the effect of their music.
What we’re looking for
For the flaw, I'd look for that gap between intent and result. We don't have to endorse Plato's proposed restrictions. We just need to see why Ullman's response hasn't defeated this particular argument for them.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
What musicians intend and what their music actually does could differ. Trying to create beauty doesn't rule out the harmful emotional effects Plato is concerned about. Ullman answers a question about consequences with a claim about motives, without connecting the two.
- B
Whether music censors would also censor newspapers or other expression doesn't resolve the effect of the music. Ullman isn't arguing about how far censorship powers would spread. The response to Plato rests on musicians' intentions, and B doesn't expose the gap in that response.
- C
Ullman calls Plato's argument misguided. Another, better argument for censorship could exist even if that criticism of Plato were sound. We need a problem with Ullman's rejection of this particular argument, not a reminder that someone could defend censorship on different grounds.
- D
Paintings or other art could be more harmful than music while music still causes the harm Plato describes. The ranking doesn't tell us whether Ullman's appeal to musicians' intentions answers that concern. No comparison among art forms is needed to identify the intent-versus-effect problem.
- E
This describes what artists would admit if they were trying to manipulate people. It doesn't establish that the musicians here have that hidden aim. More importantly, we can grant Ullman's premise that they seek beauty and still find the argument defective: unintended harm remains possible. A challenges the inference without needing to accuse the musicians of lying.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.