Critical Reasoning

kashefian wrote:

We can use the Kaplan denial test to prove that the argument depends on choice D:

If public funds should NOT support art, what happens to the argument that we should use public funds to support shocking art?

Well, since shocking art is a subset of all art, clearly the argument falls apart. Thus, choice D is an assumption the art historan's argument requires in order for its conclusion to be properly drawn. (I think this is what Phirozz meant, and Phirozz' reasoning is correct).

On the other hand, if you deny any of the other choices (including choice B), the argument remains unaffeced.

I put answer choice A under denial test: most art is not shocking. OK! if most art is not shocking then why spend public funds on those few works of art which are shocking (please pay attention that the whole conclusion rests on the facts that works of art are often shocking.)

Please explain why answer choice A is wrong?

[email protected] wrote:Hello, I guess this treat has been inactive for a while,,, I have used the Assumption Negation Technique for all Assumption questions and I feel that it works well (please suggest if this method is appropiate) ,,, but I really do not understand how the argument does not fall apart when we negate answer choice (E).

Art historian: Great works of art have often elicited outrage when first presented; in Europe, Stravinsky's Rite of Spring prompted a riot, and Manet's Déjeuner sur l'herbe elicited outrage
and derision. So, since it is clear that art is often shocking, we should not hesitate to use public
funds to support works of art that many people find shocking.

Which one of the following is an assumption that the art historian's argument requires in order for its
conclusion to be properly drawn?

(A) Most art is shocking.
(B) Stravinsky and Manet received public funding for their art.
(C) Art used to be more shocking than it currently is.
(D) Public funds should support art.
(E) Anything that shocks is art.
Negating this, could be something like this: Anything that shocks is NOT art

The conclusion of the argument is: we should not hesitate to use public funds to support works of art that many people find shocking.

The explanation that the Powerscore CR Bible gives is that for the autor to say that art is shocking and therefore art should be publicly funded, the author must assume that art is worthy of public support. So the best choice according to Powerscore is (D), since it is the only answ choice that deals directly with the conclusion and links the new elements.. ("public funds" did not appear before the conclusion...)

I do understand that negating answer choice (D) hurts the conclusion, but negating answer choice (E) does not have a broader effect?

The argument says: [i]So, since it is clear that art is often shocking[/i] If we say that anything that shocks is NOT art, doesn't have an effect on the on the whole argument? In that way we are saying that art is never shocking, therefore the conclusion lost sense...

Please your comments, I'm really confused about this one!

Thanks in advance.

[email protected] wrote:Thanks man, It was just applying the negation technique correctly.
I'am going to read very well that book, I feel it very helpfull

Now definitely D is the best option...

Regards,

Ricardo