A famous artist once claimed that all great art imitates nature. If th

(A) Music is inferior to the other arts. ----->we cannot infer that Music is inferior to the other arts. No such comparison has been done.

(B) Either the artist's claim is incorrect, or most great music is not great art. ------> it is correct because at first author said "all great art imitates nature", "any music that is great art would imitate nature." ," most great music imitates nothing at all."

(C) Like some great music, some great painting and sculpture may fail to imitate nature. -------> We can't infer this from the passage.

(D) Some elements of nature cannot be represented adequately by great art. -------> No information

(E) Sounds that do not imitate nature are not great music. ---------> It's contradicting the information in the passage. As per passage, most great music doesn't imitate anything.

Hello experts,
Please help with this medium difficulty problem and also explain the pattern used that can be utilized solving harder questions.

Hello, KumarSam. The first thing to note here is that this question comes from the LSAT. Although it is a fine question for testing logical reasoning, it may not be the best type of question to study for the GMAT™, if that is indeed the test you hope to take. I say this only because such a question would not appear on the GMAT™, and like produces like: stick to questions from the test you intend to take. With that said, since the question asks about the argument, we must first be able to identify that argument.


Sentence one is a statement, one that tells us what someone else once claimed. (It is not a claim itself, as far as the author of the passage is concerned.) We encounter an absolute in that claim: all great art imitates nature.

Sentence two launches into a conditional. If the claim is accurate, then not just some, but any music that is considered great art must imitate nature.

Sentence three gives us more insight into the stance of the author, who asserts that although some music may imitate nature, more or less, most great music imitates nothing at all.

To answer the question, we will have to consider the three sentences carefully and stick to just what they say to avoid associative reasoning.


No comparison is made in the passage between music and any other type of artistic medium. Music is only mentioned as an example of art, nothing more. This answer choice is meant to snare the test-taker who latches onto the last line and makes a deduction that steps out of bounds of what the passage lays out. A conditional is not the same as a definitive statement.


This is essentially a paraphrase of lines two and three, in order, only negated. If the claim is not correct, then music would not have to imitate nature, and that would include great music. There is nothing to debate here.


Watch out for the operative word some. It often steers answer choices into vague and dangerous territory. Again, the passage is dealing in absolutes, so our answer should reflect such absolutes. Moreover, we cannot comment on any type of art outside of music, since that is all that is discussed in the passage.


We have another some, but the problem persists. We cannot qualify just which elements may be referred to here. The answer choice seems to want to trick the test-taker into believing that if great music can exist without imitating nature, then, well, this conclusion above. But remember, we are looking to put a finger on the main point of the argument, not create a different argument ourselves.


This flies in the face of what the author of the passage asserts in the third line, that most great music imitates nothing at all. Sure, the famous artist mentioned in the opening line would apparently agree with such a statement, but that is not the topic of the question.

There you have it. I talk often about following the linear logic of a passage to arrive at a correct conclusion. When you stick to exactly what the passage and question stem lay out for you, you will be able to spot problematic answers much easier.

I hope that helps. If anyone has further questions, I would be happy to offer my thoughts.

- Andrew

Why is this question not in the Inference type of GMAT? Thanks

Hello, BenjaminWS. You can certainly encounter an inference question on the GMAT™ that might in some way incorporate the chain of logic presented in this passage, but the question stem itself is one that seems to fit Reading Comprehension or Integrated Reasoning better than Critical Reasoning, specifically the part about the main point, not to mention that LSAT questions tend to follow a stricter logic (e.g., employing three- or four-step syllogisms or using contrapositives to test an arrow of causality) than questions that appear on the GMAT™. Do not get me wrong: I do not dislike LSAT questions or feel as though they are inherently a detriment to the GMAT™ aspirant. However, I do see much confusion stemming in the forum from LSAT questions that do not really resemble GMAT™ questions closely enough to warrant concern, and that is a problem for someone who does not know better. For this reason, I advise students to work on official GMAT™ questions exclusively for Verbal unless they have a knowledgeable tutor or teacher who has hand-selected particular questions that resemble their GMAT™ counterparts.

- Andrew

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.