Andy Warhol’s Brillo Boxes

Answer choices

1. A

   Unsupported Comparison23% picked this

   highlighting the differences between things that are believed to have a certain property and things that

   The argument doesn't discuss cases in which people believe people have a certain property (work of art) and cases in which they actually have the property of being art. The argument highlights a sameness between things that are believed to have and not have a certain property. The argument highlights that "appearance" is the same between two things, despite the fact that we believe one of them, Warhol's Boxes, to have the property of art, and believe the other one, a normal stack of boxes, not to have that property.

   23%
2. B

   Out of Scope: opposing argument7% picked this

   demonstrating that an opposing argument relies on

   There isn't any opposing argument (an argument is a minimum of two claims: Conclusion and Support). There is just a proposition/claim/statement/generalization being rejected in the conclusion. Also, the author isn't emphasizing an ambiguity. She thinks it's clear that Warhol's Boxes count as art and a normal stack of boxes doesn't count as art. She using this (correct) judgment to show that there's more to art than appearance.

   7%
3. C

   Opposite: same type of thing11% picked this

   suggesting that two things that are indistinguishable from each other must be the same

   The author thinks that these two stacks of boxes are indistinguishable visually, but she thinks that they are different types of things: one is a work of art, the other is a random-ass pile of scouring pads. If indistinguishable things were always the same type of thing, then it would prove correct the statement in the conclusion, which our author is trying to disprove.

   11%
4. D

   Out of Scope: question assumption23% picked this

   questioning the assumptions underlying a particular

   The evidence of this argument is presenting a counterexample to the "theory" (?) that appearance alone determines whether or not something is considered art. It doesn't question any assumptions underlying the theory.

   23%
5. E

   Correct37% picked this

   showing that something that would be impossible if a particular thesis were correct

   Why this is right

   Do we have a particular thesis? Yes. A thesis = proposition = generalization = claim = statement. THESIS: appearance alone determines what's art If that thesis were true, would it be possible for two visually indistinguishable things to differ in terms of whether they're art? Could it be that X an Y appear identical, but X is art and Y is not? No, that would be impossible if that thesis were true. And yet, the author shows, that is precisely what's going on in the case of Warhol's BB vs. a normal stack of BB's. They appear identically, but one is art and one is not art. That disproves the idea that "appearance is the only thing that determines whether something is considered art".

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

   37%