Critical Reasoning

We ought to pay attention only to the intrinsic properties of a work of art. Its other, extrinsic properties are irrelevant to our aesthetic interactions with it. For example, when we look at a painting we should consider only what is directly presented in our experience of it. What is really aesthetically relevant, therefore, is not what a painting symbolizes, but what it directly presents to experience.

The conclusion follows logically if which one of the following is added to the premises?

A.What an art work symbolizes involves only extrinsic properties of that work.
B.There are certain properties of our experiences of artworks that can be distinguished as symbolic properties.
C.Only an artwork's intrinsic properties are relevant to our aesthetic interactions with it.
D.It is possible in theory for an artwork to symbolize nothing.
E.An intrinsic property of an artwork is one that related the work to itself.

OA Later..

Evidence: (1) Only to intrinsic property important for arts experience. (2) Extrinsic property irrelevent for asthetic interactions.

Conclusion: Aesthetically relevant things directly help in art's experience.

Gap: No evidence linking Extrnisic proprty and art's experience or Intrinsic property is aesthetically relevant


A.What an art work symbolizes involves only extrinsic properties of that work.

(talks abt extrinsic only...whereas art consists of both intrinsic and extrinsic) - OUT

B.There are certain properties of our experiences of artworks that can be distinguished as symbolic properties. -

(Bring 'symbolic properties' not discussed in argument. It just talk abt our experience)

C.Only an artwork's intrinsic properties are relevant to our aesthetic interactions with it. -

MAKES SENSE (art hs intrinsic and extrinsic property. Since extrinsic are irrelevent, only intrinsic remains as relevent. Therefore, since conclusion says 'asthetically relevant things help in art experience', we can say only instrinsic is relevent for aesthetic interaction.

D.It is possible in theory for an artwork to symbolize nothing.

- We can't say, in that case art will hv neither any intrinsic value or extrnsic value. Additionaly, argument does not talk abt 'symbolize', it just talks abt our experience with art

E.An intrinsic property of an artwork is one that related the work to itself.

- the causal relationship btn properties and art experience not discussed

IMO C

IMO C

IMO, A

B - this is already stated in the passage... they talk about paintings and symbolism.
C - this can be inferred from the passage... "Its other, extrinsic properties are irrelevant to our aesthetic interactions with it." - this implies that only the intrinsic properties are relevant, by the contrapositive.
D - this doesn't help with the logical conclusion.
E - the definition of 'intrinsic' doesn't help.

sumanr84 wrote:We ought to pay attention only to the intrinsic properties of a work of art. Its other, extrinsic properties are irrelevant to our aesthetic interactions with it. For example, when we look at a painting we should consider only what is directly presented in our experience of it. What is really aesthetically relevant, therefore, is not what a painting symbolizes, but what it directly presents to experience.

The conclusion follows logically if which one of the following is added to the premises?

A.What an art work symbolizes involves only extrinsic properties of that work.
B.There are certain properties of our experiences of artworks that can be distinguished as symbolic properties.
C.Only an artwork's intrinsic properties are relevant to our aesthetic interactions with it.
D.It is possible in theory for an artwork to symbolize nothing.
E.An intrinsic property of an artwork is one that related the work to itself.

OA Later..

hmhmhm

DOWN TO A and C
but C is a close GMAT TRAP= (Its other, extrinsic properties are irrelevant to our aesthetic interactions with it), its implied
i will also go wid A

Answer: A
Explanation: The authors conclusion is that what is important to a painting is what it presents to experience rather than what it symbolizes (we know this by the keyword therefore). His evidence is that extrinsic properties are unimportant, and intrinsic properties are the key.
Because he's shifting from irrelevant extrinsic properties in his evidence to irrelevant symbolism in his conclusion, it MUST be true the symbolism is extrinsic; if any symbolism is intrinsic, then his logic is flawed.

Finally, I have decided not to do 300 GMAT CR, for now, as my confidence is completely shattered with a hit ratio of 5/10. I have 2-3 weeks before my exam and I should focus on revising OG and other stuff.

What is a source of this question?