-
crimson2283
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 84
- Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2011 8:29 am
- Thanked: 5 times
- Followed by:1 members
As recommended by Powerscore CR, I normally read the entire argument but focus mostly on the conclusion to weaken/ strengthen it except may be if the question has statistical/ causal flaw. However, this strategy doesn't work in all cases.
For eg, for the below question,
Government support for the arts will almost certainly interfere with the freedom of the creative process. Money, inevitably controlled by the politically powerful, will accumulate around established, conservative institutions when a certain philosophy prevails, or shift to the more experimental and radical groups when the political pendulum swings. Practicing artists will alter their own work accordingly, pursuing government funds at the expense of their own inner-directed development.
The author's logic in the argument above would be most weakened if it were true that
approximately the same number of individual creative artists are associated with so-called established institutions as with the more experimental groups
many people who would not otherwise experience the arts have had the opportunity to do so because of government funding
while it can be argued that political ideas swing in and out of fashion, it is equally arguable that trends in the arts are often short-lived
in every era, a few of the greatest individual artists do not tailor their efforts to attract money, either private or public
in assigning money to the arts, the politically powerful heed the advice of independent committees composed of artists respected in their fields
If I'd only focus on the conclusion I'd pick B but the answer is E. Can an expert please clarify?
I want my strategy to work all the time
For eg, for the below question,
Government support for the arts will almost certainly interfere with the freedom of the creative process. Money, inevitably controlled by the politically powerful, will accumulate around established, conservative institutions when a certain philosophy prevails, or shift to the more experimental and radical groups when the political pendulum swings. Practicing artists will alter their own work accordingly, pursuing government funds at the expense of their own inner-directed development.
The author's logic in the argument above would be most weakened if it were true that
approximately the same number of individual creative artists are associated with so-called established institutions as with the more experimental groups
many people who would not otherwise experience the arts have had the opportunity to do so because of government funding
while it can be argued that political ideas swing in and out of fashion, it is equally arguable that trends in the arts are often short-lived
in every era, a few of the greatest individual artists do not tailor their efforts to attract money, either private or public
in assigning money to the arts, the politically powerful heed the advice of independent committees composed of artists respected in their fields
If I'd only focus on the conclusion I'd pick B but the answer is E. Can an expert please clarify?
I want my strategy to work all the time
