Logical Reasoning

PT113 · S3 · Q18 Not all works of art represent

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

  • Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one

  • Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step

  • 81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Start practicing free

Not all works of art represent something, but some do, and their doing so is relevant to our aesthetic experience of them; representation is therefore an aesthetically relevant property.

Conclusion (so)

There can't be any clear criteria for determining whether an object qualifies as art.

Evidence

Some works of art are representational, and what they represent is an aesthetically relevant property of the art. But whether art possesses this property or not depends upon context, and there aren't any clear cut rules for determining if an object does / doesn't have a context-dependent property.

Evaluate

They were just trying to punish us there. Brutal read. Let's focus on the connection between the final idea and the conclusion:

If ... Then ... no clear criteria no clear criteria for determining → for determining context-dependent whether object properties is art ... ?

That must be assuming that .

We could weaken the argument by attacking that assumption, saying something like, .

We could also object to our author thinking that, .

Who said we need clear cut criteria in order to figure out context-dependent properties? I'm pretty sure the Supreme Court famously failed to provide any clear cut criteria for the "it depends" property of obscenity, deeming that "you know it when you see it". They were confident that even if you don't rigorously define it, you may be able to clearly identify sometimes.

Goal

Look for an answer showing how we could determine whether an object qualifies as art, even though we don't have clear cut criteria for determining context-dependent properties. -- maybe we don't need context-dependent to ascertain whether it's art -- maybe we don't need clear cut criteria to ascertain whether context-dependent stuff is present

18.

The reasoning above is questionable because it fails to exclude the possibility that

  1. because some works of art

    Strengthens, If Anything

    This does not help us to argue that "there can be clear criteria for determining whether something qualifies as art". It seems to be speaking about cases in which "there can't be a way of judging aesthetics".

    5% picked this

  2. an object may have some

    Strengthens, If Anything

    This is very weakly worded, so not tempting to begin with (for Strengthen, Weaken, Paradox). But it seems to bring up a potentially misleading case where something has aesthetic properties but isn't a work of art. That sounds more like an idea that would help the author argue, "See? We'll never be able to clearly say whether something is or isn't art."

    8% picked this

  3. Correct

    aesthetically relevant properties other than

    Why this is right

    In this argument, the author tells us that representation is a context-dependent property, and we don't have a clear cut way to determine whether it's present in a work of art. This is the reason for his pessimistic conclusion. This answer is saying, "That's cool. So we don't have a clear way of determining whether or not an object is representational. That doesn't mean we determine whether an object qualifies as art. There are other aesthetically relevant properties we could use to make that determination." The goal of most Weaken answers is to absorb the Premise and show that it's still compatible with the Conclusion being wrong (i.e. the Anti-Conclusion). This answer allows us to say, "Even though PREM, it can still be ANTI-CONC" representation is aesthetically relevant, but we have no clear cut way to determine if it's present, we have at least some clear cut way to determine whether an object is art, we can use other aesthetically relevant properties to determine whether an object is art.

    Skill tested: Flaw · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

    72% picked this

  4. some works of art may

    No Impact

    This is somewhat similar to (B), in that if anything it seems to strengthen the author's general position that it's tough to ascertain whether stuff is / isn't art ... whether aesthetic properties are / aren't present ... are / aren't relevant.

    13% picked this

  5. some objects that represent things

    Strengthens, if anything

    This is very weakly worded, so not tempting to begin with (for Strengthen, Weaken, Paradox). But it seems to bring up a potentially misleading case where something has representational properties but isn't a work of art. That sounds more like an idea that would help the author argue, "See? We'll never be able to clearly say whether something is or isn't art."

    1% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill
LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free