The arousal of anger is sometimes a legitimate artistic aim, and every legitimate artwork that has this aim calls int...

Irina on July 15, 2019

@Juzzy
This is a justify question,meaning we need to identify a statement that is sufficient to prove the conclusion. Before even looking at the answer choices, let's look at the structure of the argument.

Premise 1: The arousal of anger is a legitimate aim.
Premise 2. Every legitimate artwork that has this aim calls intentionally for concrete intervention in the world.
[Missing assumption]
Conclusion: Critics that maintain that beauty is characteristic of all legitimate art are mistaken.

For the conclusion to logically follow, we need to assume that any legitimate artwork that calls for concrete intervention in the world is not concerned with beauty, which is essentially a paraphrase of answer choice D.

Let's briefly consider other answer choices:
(A) is irrelevant because the conclusion only talks about legitimate art
(B) is the opposite of what the author is arguing against
(C) weakens the argument, if this were true, the critics would indeed be correct, it does not matter whether the concern for beauty is secondary
(E) is irrelevant because legitimacy of the art is not in question

Ravi on July 15, 2019

@Juzzy,

Happy to help. Let's take a look at (D).

This is a strengthen with a sufficient premise question. We're looking
for the answer choice that makes the argument valid.

We know that

Arousing anger is sometimes a legitimate artistic claim
Every legitimate artwork that has the aim of arousing anger - >Calls
intentionally for concrete intervention
Conclusion: critics who maintain that all legitimate art is concerned
with beauty are mistaken

The key to getting this question correct is realizing what the
implications of the conclusion are. If the people who say that all
legitimate art has a concern for beauty are mistaken, then this means
that not all legitimate art has a concern for beauty.

If not all legitimate art has a concern for beauty, this means that
some legitimate are is not concerned with beauty. This is what the
argument is wanting to prove.

However, do we have a premise that tells us what's not concerned wit
beauty? We don't. This means the answer will link one of our premises
to not being concerned for beauty.

(D) says, "No works of art that call for intervention are concerned
with beauty."

We can diagram (D):

Work of art that calls for intervention - >not concerned with beauty

This would mean that the legitimate works that aim to arouse anger are
not concerned with beauty, so this would be a sufficient premise for
us, allowing the argument to be valid. Thus, (D) is the correct answer
choice.

Does this make sense? Let us know if you have any more questions!