righthand wrote:
Art critic: Abstract paintings are nonrepresentational, and so the only measure of their worth is their interplay of color, texture, and form. But for a painting to spur the viewer to political action, instances of social injustice must be not only represented, but also clearly comprehensible as such. Therefore, abstract painting can never be a politically significant art form.
Which one of the following is an assumption that is required by the art critic’s argument?
(A) Abstract painting cannot stimulate people to act.
(B) Unless people view representations of social injustice, their political activity is insignificant.
(C) Only art that prompts people to counter social injustice is significant art.
(D) Paintings that fail to move a viewer to political action cannot be politically significant.
(E) The interplay of color, texture, and form is not a measure of the worth of representational paintings.
EXPLANATION FROM Fox LSAT
The logic here is pretty tight, because I don’t personally see how a viewer could possibly “clearly comprehend” an instance of social injustice from a “nonrepresentational” “interplay of color, texture, and form.” That would be like seeing a painting of nothing more than a big green box and going, “
Oh, those poor Somali refugees.” Seems unlikely.
But in your first year Legal Writing and Research class, you will learn that in legal writing
nothing should be taken for granted. Not even things that seem obvious. This argument does not explicitly state, and therefore it
assumes, that a viewer can’t clearly comprehend an instance of social injustice from a nonrepresentational interplay of color, texture, and form. So that’s our first prediction.
We can double-check whether our prediction is actually an assumption
required by the argument by negating it. If it’s not true, does the argument fall apart? Let’s see. If we negated my prediction, we’d get, “A viewer
can clearly comprehend an instance of social injustice from a nonrepresentational interplay of color, texture, and form.” Well, if that’s true, then why the hell would we conclude that an abstract painting could never be politically significant? Without our predicted assumption, the argument simply makes no sense. Let’s see if it’s listed in the answer choices:
A) Not what we’re looking for.
B) Not what we’re looking for.
C) Not what we’re looking for.
D) Not what we’re looking for.
E) Not what we’re looking for.
Ahhhhhhhh ****. I still think our prediction was good, but there can be multiple assumptions in an argument. Do any of the other answer choices have to be true in order for the conclusion to make sense? Let’s see.
A) If this is false, an abstract painting can stimulate people to act. But it still might not be able to stimulate people
to political action, which requires “clear comprehension” etc. So I don’t think this is it.
B) This one is just irrelevant, because it is about the significance of
people’s political action rather than the political significance of art. I don’t think so.
C) The argument is not about whether art is “significant,” it’s about whether art is
politically significant. This seems irrelevant.
D) Okay, I can make a case for this one. If this answer is not true, then it is possible that a painting that fails to move a viewer to political action can still be politically significant. And if that’s true, then the argument simply makes no sense. This wasn’t the assumption we predicted, but it’s still a necessary assumption because
if it’s false, the argument fails. This is a good answer.
E) The argument is not about the “worth” of paintings. It’s specifically about whether abstract painting can be “politically significant.”
Since we can see how D must be true in order for the argument to make sense, and since we can’t say the same about the rest, D is our answer.
_________________
Updated on: 28 Sep 2020, 20:11
45%
(medium)
67%
(02:07)
correct 
close
