PrepTest 153, Section 3, Question 22
Laurie: In a democracy, public art should bring(66 more words not shown)
Laurie's and Elsa's statements provide(9 more words not shown)
- Awhat types of(8 more words not shown)
- Bwhether it is(18 more words not shown)
- Cwhat the criterion(10 more words not shown)
- Dwhether contemporary public(4 more words not shown)
- Ewhether it is(13 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Laurie wants public art to bring people together. It could express something people already agree about, or help people work through their differences and recognize that no single view settles everything. Those are two routes to the same broad goal.
Then Laurie says current public art creates only acrimony—bitter anger and hostility—so it has failed. I want to examine that step. Could a work stir up an angry discussion and still help people confront their differences? If it produces only hostility and nothing that brings people together, I can see Laurie's objection. But anger by itself wouldn't tell us everything about what the art accomplishes.
Elsa says art should emphasize people's radically different opinions, and calls Laurie's demand impossible. At first that leaves me with questions. Couldn't highlighting a disagreement help people work through it? And why is bringing people together impossible? Elsa asserts that limit without explaining it.
What we’re looking for
For the disagreement question, my first thought is whether art can accomplish Laurie's goals. But Laurie states what art should do, which isn't quite the same as explicitly claiming it can do it. I don't have a clean prediction yet. Let's use the choices carefully, checking what each speaker actually says rather than forcing them into the disagreement I expected.
Working the answers
- A
Neither speaker identifies which kinds of art are most common. We haven't compared sculptures with paintings or any other types. The discussion concerns what public art should accomplish and how to assess it.
- B
This sounds close to the initial question about what is possible. But enjoying and supporting the same artwork isn't the same as reconciling differences or reaching agreement. People could enjoy a piece while continuing to disagree about its subject.
Laurie gives art a goal; Elsa calls that demand impossible. Neither clearly settles whether people with radically different opinions can enjoy and support the same art. We can't replace their actual discussion with this different test.
- CCorrect
'Criterion of success' means the standard for deciding whether the art succeeds. Laurie uses bringing people together as that standard and judges contemporary art a failure. Elsa rejects the demand and proposes emphasizing people's differences instead.
Elsa does give us an alternative standard in her first sentence. That makes C more precise than simply asking whether some imagined result is possible. One speaker wants art to bring people together; the other says it should emphasize their radically different opinions. They disagree about what it should be judged by.
- D
Laurie says contemporary public art creates only acrimony. Elsa doesn't say that description is false. She could accept it while objecting to the demand that the art bring people together. Disagreeing with Laurie's judgment of failure doesn't require denying every observation Laurie uses.
- E
Expressing an existing consensus is different from helping achieve a new consensus. Laurie allows art either to express agreement or to help people reconcile differences; she doesn't say all successful art must make everyone agree. Elsa also objects that Laurie's demand is impossible, which isn't itself a claim that consensus would be unwise. E doesn't give us a clear pair of opposing positions.
More Disagreement questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Disagreement questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.