Free LSAT Practice
LSAT Practice Test
LSAT Practice Test Videos
eBook: The Road to 180
Law School Top 100
LSAT Test Proctor
LSAT Logic Games
Apple App Store
Digital LSAT Simulator
Campus Rep Internship
Fee Waiver Scholarship
LSAT Test Dates
LSAT Message Board
November 2018 LSAT
Andy Warhol's Brillo Boxes is a stack of boxes that are visually indistinguishable from the product packaging of an a...
on January 30 at 03:51AM
why is this wrong?
can some explain why this is wrong?
on January 31 at 07:29PM
I am not able to see the answer that you chose, so I will discuss all of the answer choices.
Let's break down the argument.
Andy Warhol's Brillo Boxes presents a conundrum. It is a work of art that is identical to something that is not a work of art.
From this, the author makes a conclusion: "Therefore, it is not true that appearance alone entirely determines whether or not something is considered a work of art."
This seems to be a valid conclusion. These two things are visually indistinguishable, so there must be something other than appearance that makes one of them, and not the other, a work of art.
A. Does the author attempt to determine what is actually art vs. what is believed to be art? No, she makes no such judgement. She is only trying to say that a factor other than appearance must be involved in what is considered art.
B. The author is opposing the idea that "appearance alone entirely determines whether or not something is considered a work of art." However, she does so by presenting counterexamples, not by demonstrating ambiguity. An argument that could be interpreted in multiple different ways would be considered ambiguous. That is not the problem here.
C. The author is not saying that Brillo Boxes and a regular stack of boxes are the same type of thing. She only says that they are "visually indistinguishable," but acknowledges that one is considered art while the other isn't.
D. The author doesn't question any assumptions here.
E. This is the correct answer. What is the thesis in question? Appearance alone entirely determines whether or not something is considered a work of art. If this were true, then how could Warhol's Brillo Boxes be considered art when a regular stack of boxes isn't? This would be impossible. However, we have proof that this is the reality. Therefore, the thesis cannot be true
Posting to the forum is only allowed for members with active accounts.