All works of art are beautiful

Answer choices

1. A

   Not a Flaw1% picked this

   uses the inherently vague term "beautiful" without providing an explicit definition

   The lack of an explicit definition for ‘beautiful’ isn’t the logical problem with the argument (LSAT doesn't require exact definitions). Even if we replace ‘beautiful’ and ‘art’ with some placeholder ideas like B and A, we could still criticize the logical move the author makes. Given the rule “all A’s are B”, knowing that “X is B” does not tell us whether “X is A”. I don’t need an explicit definition of the inherently vague A, B, X to explain to the author why this is wrong.

   1%
2. B

   Trap1% picked this

   attempts to establish an evaluative conclusion solely on the basis of claims

   Too Strong / Bad Premise Match: "solely factual" Is the conclusion evaluative? I guess so, calling the natural world a work of art seems somewhat evaluative. Is the evidence solely factual? Well, no. If we’re counting “work of art” as an evaluative term, then we’d certainly count “beautiful” as an evaluative term, and both premises are telling us that certain things are “beautiful”, hence the evidence (the basis) is not solely factual. This answer describes a somewhat recurring flaw – Opinion vs. Fact.

   1%
3. C

   Correct93% picked this

   concludes, simply because an object possesses two qualities that are each common to all works of art, that the object

   Why this is right

   Does the argument conclude that an object is a work of art? Yes, it concludes natural world is a work of art. Is the evidence just saying that natural world possesses two qualities that are found in all works of art? Yes, the evidence says that natural world is beautiful and instructive, just like all works of art. This did not describe the Necessary vs. Sufficient flaw in its typical form, but if we can match up the Conclusion part of this answer to the Conclusion of the argument, and the Evidence part to the Evidence of the argument, then we know it’s a good answer.

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

   93%
4. D

   Too Strong: "only"1% picked this

   presumes, without providing justification, that only objects that are beautiful

   Does the author have to assume that only beautiful things are instructive? No, she hasn’t committed to such a strong link between those two things. If we negated this and said, “at least one instructive thing isn’t beautiful”, it would have no negative effect on the argument.

   1%
5. E

   Out of Scope4% picked this

   fails to consider the possibility that there are many things that are both beautiful and instructive but are not

   Out of Scope: “not part of natural world” Does it weaken the argument if something is beautiful and instructive, but not part of the natural world? No. The author isn’t commenting on anything outside of the natural world. She’s only trying to make a case about the natural world. It would weaken the argument if we found out that there are many things that are both beautiful and instructive but not works of art.

   4%