Linguist: One group of art critics claims that postimpressionist paintings are not really art and so should be neithe...

shunhe on July 30, 2020

Hi @hkolon,

Thanks for the question! So let’s break down what’s going on in this stimulus. There’s a group of art critics who think that postimpressionist paintings aren’t art. And then there’s another group of critics who think that it is. But this second group, we’re told, agrees that there exist paintings that aren’t works of art. And so, the linguist concludes, the disagreement isn’t over the meaning of the word “art.”

Now we’re asked for the role that the claim “there are paintings that aren’t works of art” plays in the argument. Well, that’s what the linguist says that the second group and first group agree on. And that also relates pretty directly to the linguist’s conclusion, which states that the disagreement isn’t over the meaning of the word “art,” since they agree on this point. So we want an answer choice that says something along these lines.

Now take a look at (E), which tells us that this phrase is a claim whose acceptance by both of the two disputing parties is cited as evidence for a conclusion the argument draws about the disagreement. This is worded pretty confusingly on purpose, but when you break it down, it’s exactly the answer choice that we want.

First, is it a claim that’s accepted by both of the disputing parties? Yes, they both agree that some paintings aren’t works of art. Is it cited as evidence for a conclusion about the disagreement? Yes, it helps us understand why the disagreement isn’t over the meaning of the word “art,” which is the conclusion. And so (E) describes exactly what the phrase does and is the correct answer choice.

(D) tells us that this claim is one that’s about the nature of art that, according to the argument, accounts for disputes that only appear to concern the aesthetic merits of certain types of paintings. Well, does this claim account for any disputes? No, not according to this stimulus, because we’re that the two parties agree on this point! So why would it account for any disputes? That’s what makes (D) wrong here.

(A) is also wrong for this reason. The two groups don’t disagree on this point, they agree on it.

(B) is wrong because the argument just doesn’t offer independent evidence for a hypothesis anywhere.

(C) is wrong because even though the claim is accepted by critics, the argument doesn’t try to use that to prove that the claim is true.

Hope this helps! Feel free to ask any other questions that you might have.