It is an absurd idea that whatever artistic endeavor the government refuses to support it does not allow, as one can ...
BatmanJanuary 11, 2014
Why is absurd then???
Rephrased sentence is just contrapositive, which means it doesn't have any matter logically. Then, why is it regarded as "absurd idea?" I was fooled by "absurd" since I thought it means rephrasing sentence is illogical. Pleas give me some more explanation.
Thanks
Replies
Create a free account to read and
take part in forum discussions.
Though being absurd does mean being illogical, we are not talking about "logic" in the sense of LSAT - instead think of it as just being untrue. Merely, the argument is showing that the statement: "whatever artistic endeavor the government refuses to support it dow not allow," does not make sense by showing how its contrapositive is not true. Remember that a general principle and a contrapositive are identical in meaning so the author is explaining that if the contrapositive is false, then the general principle is false as well. The general rule's contrapositive: "No on is allowed to create art without a government subsidy," is illogical (i.e. it is false) because anyone can draw on a piece of paper, thereby creating art without a government subsidy.
Likewise, answer choice (A) has a similar pattern of reasoning. The author shows how the general rule, "any driver who is not arrested does not break the law," is absurd because its contrapositive is not true: "Every driver who breaks the law gets arrested." We know that many people do not abide by stop signs or break the speed limit, but not all of them are arrested. Merely, the author is pointing out the falsity of a general principle by showing that its contrapositive is false.
Hope that was helpful! Let us know if you have any other questions!
