kpadma wrote:
24. There is little point in looking to artists for insights into political issues. Most of them hold political views that are less insightful than those of any reasonably well-educated person who is not an artist. Indeed, when taken as a whole, the statements made by artists, including those considered to be great, indicate that artistic talent and political insight are rarely found together.
Which one of the following can be inferred from the passage?
(A) There are no artists who have insights into political issues.
(B) A thorough education in art makers a person reasonably well educated.
(C) Every reasonably well-educated person who s not an artist has more insight into political issues than any artist.
(D) Politicians rarely have any artistic talent.
(E) Some artists are no less politically insightful than some reasonably well-educated persons who are not artists.
If you notice, this inference question is a little unique because it presents us with an argument. So, I approached this as more of an assumption question; I was on the lookout for a necessary assumption as I went to the answers.
The conclusion is found in the first sentence, while the remainder of the argument is structured to support this first sentence. Notice how qualified the author's statements are and, in particular, I think the key words to pay attention to are "little point" in the conclusion. The words "rarely found together" are very important from the final sentence, which acts as a premise in the argument.
The assumption that jumped out at me almost immediately was that the author must think that there is still "some" point to look to artists for political insights, or else he/she would have said "there's no point" in the conclusion (instead of saying that there's "little point"). Furthermore, the author would have used the word "never" instead of "rarely" in the final sentence, which is a premise of course. But why is this the case, you might ask? The reason for this must be that, as (E) points out, there must some artists that are just as politically insightful as the other group; if there weren't, the argument would fall apart instantaneously!
So, if one approached this question like I did, answers (A), (B), and (D) could be seen to be hopeless from the get-go.
Answer (C) is wrong because it weakens the argument directly and before you even negate it. If this answer were true, then why would there be "little point" or why would they "rarely" be found together?
So, to summarize, (C) is wrong because it weakens before it is negated and tends to strengthen the argument after it is negated. Answer choice (E) does the exact opposite and is thus the correct answer.