PT147 · S4 · Q8 Whenever an artist endowed with both

This answer doesn't address the new concept in the conclusion, "rare", so it's not attractive at a first glance. If we negated this and said, "Hey author, every artist possesses a high level of artistic skill", that wouldn't weaken the argument. She could say, "True, but they rarely have a high degree of creativity", or "True, but they rarely combine their skill and their creativity in the creation of an artwork".

This answer doesn't address the new concept in the conclusion, "rare", so it's not attractive at a first glance. This answer may seem like a restatement of the first sentence, which would also make it unappealing. We don't want our answer to sound like it's being derived entirely from one premise. But the first sentence isn't guaranteeing that any artist who possesses skill and creativity will produce great works of art. The fact that they have skillful and creative capacities doesn't mean they'll actually use those capacities. Someone might be endowed with a hilarious sense of humor but still choose to write a dry, boring letter. So this answer is stronger than anything the author has committed to. She was only saying that when a skillful and creative artist combines skill and creativity in the creation of an artwork, then it will necessarily be a great work of art.

The word "few" does connect with our desired target of talking about why great art is "rare". Great art is rare, if it's rare for skill and creativity to be combined in the creation of a work. That might be because skill is rarely possessed. That might be, as this answer is saying, because creativity is rarely possessed. Or that might be because even though both traits are commonly possessed, it's rare for an artist to combine both traits while creating an artwork. The author doesn't need to assume that the reason great art is rare is because most artists don't have the high degree of creativity. Even if we negated this and said, "Hey, author -- most artists have a high degree of creativity", that wouldn't weaken. The author could say, "True, but most don't have a high level of skill" or "True, but most don't combine skill and creativity in the creation of a given work".

This feels somewhat tempting, as an additional inference we could make if we accept the conclusion as true. If great art is rare, then one would think that those who create great art only produce a few examples. But that's not a necessary implication. It could be true that great art is rare because there are only a few artists who ever combine skill and creativity into their works. The ones who do happen to make tons of great works of art, but given that 99% of artists aren't combining skill and creativity, that still means that great works of art are rare.