There is little point in looking to artists for insights into political issues. Most of them hold political views tha...

Naz March 10, 2015

We are told that MOST artists hold political views that are less insightful than those held by reasonably well-educated people who are not artists. Note that the passage doesn't say EVERY artist's political views are less insightful than those held by reasonably well-educated people who are not artists. Thus, we cannot say that answer choice (C) must be true.

And we are told that RARELY are artistic talent and political insight found together, meaning once in a while--though RARE--artistic talent and political insight ARE found together. Thus, due to the wording of the argument, i.e. "rarely," there is at least one, i.e. "some," artists that are no less politically insightful than some reasonable well-educated persons who are not artists.

So, answer choice (E): "Some artists are no less politically insightful than some reasonably well-educated persons who are not artists," must be true since the word "rarely," indicates that in rare instances this does occur.

Hope that helps! Please let us know if you have any other questions.

GreenMachine November 20, 2015

Just because we can find them together in those rare cases, how do we know how they will compare with reasonably educated people?

Mehran November 21, 2015

Thanks for your question, @GreenMachine. The key language for your question is the "no less politically insightful" phrasing. If at least some artists are "no less politically insightful" than some reasonably well-educated people, we have an established comparison. Hope this helps! Please let us know if you have any additional questions.

amiru77 October 7, 2017

Hi Mehran,
I chose AC E but it is not 100% supported by the passage. According to the passage MOST artists hold political views that are less insightful than those reasonably well-educated persons not artists. Considering the fact that MOST as well as SOME include ALL, we cannot infer that some artists are not less insightful than (or some artists are as insightful as) those reasonably well-educated persons not artists. Moreover, the passage says: artistic talent and political insight are rarely found together. All we can infer from this statement is that sometimes we can find together artistic talent and political insight. However, this statement does not provide us with any basis for comparison between political insight in talented artists and those of well-educated non-artists. Therefore, this statement does not allow us to conclude for 100% sure that in those RARE instances that political insight and artistic talent are found together in one person, that person is necessarily as insightful as a well-educated non-artist.
Am I missing something? can you please let me know where have gone wrong in analyzing the stimulus?

Mehran October 9, 2017

Thank you for your question! This is a Must Be True question--the correct answer choice is textually-supported by the information presented in the passage.

The passage tells us that MOST artists' political views are less insightful than those of any reasonably well-educated person who is not an artist.

All right. Let's remember that a MOST statement reverses as a "some" statement.

So, the reverse of "MOST artists' political views are less insightful than those of any reasonably well-educated person who is not an artist" is "some reasonably well-educated people who are not artists have political views that are at least as insightful / no less insightful than those of artists'."

OK, this is what answer choice (E) says: "SOME artists are NO less politically insightful than some reasonably well-educated persons who are not artists."

Hope this helps!

amiru77 October 10, 2017

Thanks for your reply! but I am still confused by this question.
As far as I learned from the quantifiers lesson, when reversing SOME or MOST statements we cannot negate the statements. So when reversing this:
Most artists' political views are less insightful than those of any reasonably well-educated people. APV-most- LITREP
We shall say:
Some of the political views that are less insightful than those of any reasonably well-educated people are those of artists (or belong to artists)
LITREP-some-APV
Why does LESS INSIGHTFUL become AS INSIGHTFUL (which is its logical opposite)? can we negate and reverse in quantifier statements?

Mehran October 10, 2017

Great follow-up! Yes, you are stating the correct rules, but you're thinking about the concept of relative insightfulness a little too rigidly here.

Notice that the passage does not talk about absolute insightfulness, but only posits relative relationships ("less insightful than . . .")

The syntax of the sentence "most artists' political views are less insightful than those of any reasonably well-educated person who is not an artist" is also important here.

OK, so let's reverse that sentence:

Some reasonably well-educated people who are not artists have political views that are at least as insightful as (or: no less insightful than) those of artists.

It's not that "less insightful" becomes "as insightful" - it's that we're speaking about relative degrees. What's the logical opposite of "less insightful"? It's not necessarily "more insightful." Remember that equality is possible. Thus, the minimum that must be true is that these people are "as insightful as" (or "no less insightful than") artists.

Hope this helps!

amiru77 October 11, 2017

If we simplify that, are you saying that:
A-most- < B
B-soms- > or = A
Then:
A-some-equal B?
I understand that logical opposite of "less insightful" can include "as insightful" but in this case saying that: If "A-most-/=A" would mean that we infer that "some are not" from a "most" statement. form the statement: "A-most-A" with 100% certainty but we how can we be certain that "B-some-equal A"?

amiru77 October 11, 2017

Sorry the system disarranged the symbols I used in my message so I try to rephrase it:
If we simplify that, are you saying that:
A-most- less than B
B-some- greater than or equal to A
Then:
A-some-equal to B?
I understand that logical opposite of "less insightful" can include "as insightful" but in this case inferring from:
A-most- less than B
B-some-greater than or equal to A"
would mean that we infer "some are not" from a "most" statement.
but form the statement:
A-most- less than B
we can only deduce:
B-some- greater than A with 100% certainty because this is equal to the former statement in logical value but how can we certainly deduce that:
B-some-equal A?
This would be logically different from the original statement.