Hello,
The argument implies that currently many cabinetmakers win acclaim as artists. However, cabinetmakers also need to pay attention to the utility of the cabinets and hence, cabinet making is not an art.
This depends on the assumption that while making something , if you need to consider its utility, then it is not an art form. This is directly mentioned in D. However, let us analyze the rest of the options. Let us try the negation test to check this.
(A) Some furniture is made to be placed in museums, where it will not be used by anyone. This is irrelevant.
(B) Some cabinetmakers are more concerned than others with the practical utility of the products they produce. Some cabinetmakers might be more concerned with the utility of their products. However, this does not imply that their work is not an art form. This option does not give us any relationship between cabinetmaking and art form.
(C) Cabinetmakers should be more concerned with the practical utility of their products than they currently are. This suggests that the cabinetmakers need to more concerned with the practical utility of their products. However, it does not tell us whether cabinetmaking is an art form or not.
(D) An object is not an art object if its maker pays attention to the object’s practical utility. Might be the assumption.
(E) Artists are not concerned with the monetary value of their products. The negative of this is that artists are concerned with the monetary value of their products. However, does this cause the conclusion to fail? The conclusion still stands as the decision of whether cabinetmaking is an art or not does not depend on its monetary value in this argument. The conclusion depends on whether it can be considered an art form if it is made with some purpose or utility in mind.
Regarding your second question, the statement "But since furniture must be useful, cabinetmakers must exercise their craft with an eye to the practical utility of their product" implies that since furniture need to be useful, cabinetmakers have to consider the utility of the furniture. The "must" in the argument does not give a futuristic outlook. Rather, it highlights the necessity of considering the utility of the cabinet while constructing it.
Hopefully this clarified your doubt. Please let me know if you need any further clarification.
z3nith wrote:
In recent years, many cabinetmakers have been winning acclaim as artists. But since furniture must be useful,
cabinetmakers must exercise their craft with an eye to the practical utility of their product. For this reason,
cabinetmaking is not art.
Which of the following is an assumption that supports drawing the conclusion above from the reason given for
that conclusion?
(A) Some furniture is made to be placed in museums, where it will not be used by anyone.
(B) Some cabinetmakers are more concerned than others with the practical utility of the products they
produce.
(C) Cabinetmakers should be more concerned with the practical utility of their products than they
currently are.
(D) An object is not an art object if its maker pays attention to the object’s practical utility.
(E) Artists are not concerned with the monetary value of their products.
Also i am a little confused from the meaning of the argument.
>>> But since furniture must be useful, cabinetmakers must exercise their craft with an eye to the practical utility of their product
means -- since furniture should be useful; CMs should keep that in mind ; as if they are not currently doing so and author is saying they should make USEFUL cabinets
"must" gives a futuristic view. So we are not sure what kind of cabinets are being currently made. thus we cant say why it cant be an art.