If all works of art evoke intense feelings, and this sculpture is a work of art, then it follows that this sculpture ...

Naz on January 18, 2014

Okay let's diagram the argument:

"If all works of art evoke intense feelings,"

P1: WoA ==> EIF
not EIF ==> not WoA

"and this sculpture is a work of art,"

P2: WoA

"then it follows that this sculpture evokes intense feelings."

C1: EIF

"But this sculpture does not evoke intense feelings at all,"

P3: not EIF

"So either this sculpture is not a work of art, or not all works of art evoke intense feelings."

C2: not WoA or WoA-some-not EIF

Answer choice (B) does not have a similar pattern of reasoning. Let's diagram:

"If all medical research is significant,"

P1: MR ==> S
not S ==> not MR

"and this research is medical,"

P2: MR

"then it follows that this research is significant."

C1: S

"But this research is actually of no significance."

P3: not S

"So not all medical research is significant, and this is not medical."

C2: MR-some-not S and not M

The main conclusion, C2, in the argument was that due to the evidence and general rule presented EITHER some works of art do not evoke intense feelings, OR this is not a work of art. However, in answer choice (B), the main conclusion is that some medical research is not significant AND this research is not medical. The main conclusion of the argument includes at least one of the options presented, whereas the conclusion in answer choice (B) includes both. This is why answer choice (B) does not have a similar pattern of reasoning as the argument.

Hope that helps! Let us know if you have any other questions!

Batman on January 19, 2014

Thank you so much!