Critical Reasoning

X: Owners of any work of art, simply by
virtue of ownership, ethically have the right to
destroy that artwork if they find it morally or
aesthetically distasteful, or if caring for it
becomes inconvenient.

Y: Ownership of unique artworks, unlike
ownership of other kinds of objects, carries the
moral right to possess but not to destroy. A
unique work of art with aesthetic or historical
value belongs to posterity and so must be
preserved, whatever the personal wishes of its
legal owner.

1. Which one of the following principles, if
accepted, would contribute most to
Y’s defense of her position against
that of X?

�� Truly great works of art are never morally
or aesthetically distasteful to any serious
student of the history of art.
�� The right of future generations to have their
artistic heritage preserved is of greater
importance than the rights of any presently
living individual.
�� It would be imprudent to allow the present
stock of artworks to be destroyed without
some guarantee that the artists of the future
will produce works as great as those
produced in the past.
�� There are certain entities over which no one
would be ethically justified in claiming
absolute rights to ownership.
�� The autonomy of individuals to do what
they wish with what is theirs must not be
compromised, in the absence of a threat to
anyone’s health or safety.

2. On the basis of their statements, Y and
X are committed to disagreeing about the
truth of which of the following statements?
�� Anyone who owns a portrait presenting his
or her father in an unflattering light would
for that reason alone be ethically justified in
destroying it.
�� People who own aesthetically valuable
works of art have no moral obligation to
make them available for public viewing.
�� Valuable paintings by well-known artists
are seldom intentionally damaged or
destroyed by their owners.
�� If a piece of sculpture is not unique, its
owner has no ethical obligation to preserve
it if doing so proves burdensome.
�� It is legally permissible for a unique and
historically valuable mural to be destroyed
by its owner if he or she tires of it.

IMO
1 D - X talks of any art work but Y talks of unique art works. If these unique art works do not have abosolute ownership then they cannot be destroyed.

2 E - X and Y disagree only when the art is unique and has historical significance. Option E correctly states that.

(D) & (E)

Thanks for the replies. I too marked D and E. The OAs are :-

1) B
Y argues that ‘UNIQUE ARTWORKS’ cannot be destroyed because such artworks belong to posterity or the
future generations. Therefore, she says, such unique artworks must be preserved.


2) A
They disagree that unique artworks can be destroyed if the owner tires of
such artworks or does not wish to care for them. Choice A presents a situation over which the two will strongly disagree. X may
want to destroy a ‘portrait’ (one of a kind picture) of his father if such portrait is less than flattering, but Y would want to have
the portrait preserved for the grandchildren because it is a one of a kind picture.

Do you agree with these ?

B and C IMO.

B is pretty clear in the first one, posterity means future generation which is reflected in B.

In the 2nd one, none of the options really stand out but C is the closest.

A. Wrong because portrait of father (and that too in an unflattering light) is not a work of art . Y would agree with X here.

B. public viewing is not relevant here. No one is explicitly for or against it and thus they shouldn't disagree

C. This is remotely plausible. Y thinks that these works of art are seldom damaged because the owners think that they are valuable and must be passed on to posterity. X would say, not necessarily, folks might destroy them if they find those work of arts to be ungainly.

D. out of scope. none of them talk about non-unique work of art.

E. Clearly wrong. No one is talking about legalities here.

1 B
2 C

I totally agree. Answer should be D and E