It is currently 18 Nov 2017, 18:44

Close

GMAT Club Daily Prep

Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

If the artificial is not better than the natural, to what

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 03 Jul 2003
Posts: 651

Kudos [?]: 106 [0], given: 0

If the artificial is not better than the natural, to what [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 02 Feb 2004, 13:10
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 100% (01:41) wrong based on 1 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

If the artificial is not better than the natural, to what end are all the arts of life? To dig, to plow, to build, to wear clothesтАФall are direct violations of the injunction to follow nature.

17. Which one of the following is an assumption made by the author of the passage?

(A) The arts of life have no useful end.

(B) The artificial is not better than the natural.

(C) Digging, plowing, building, and wearing clothes are better than nature.

(D) The injunction to follow nature should not be violated.

(E) The arts of life are indirect means of following nature.



18. If the authorтАЩs argument were challenged on the grounds that the construction of buildings has adverse effects on the natural environment, which of the following replies might the author use to respond to the challenge logically?

(A) There are human activities, such as making music, that are environmentally harmless.

(B) Harming the environment is not an end, of purpose, of the arts of life.

(C) The construction could involve the use of natural, not artificial, materials.

(D) Constructing buildings is not an тАЬart of life.тАЭ

(E) Even if the natural environment is disturbed by the construction of buildings, it is improved for human use.

What is the meaning of the phrase "to what end are all the arts of life?"

Kudos [?]: 106 [0], given: 0

Director
Director
User avatar
Joined: 28 Oct 2003
Posts: 501

Kudos [?]: 34 [0], given: 0

Location: 55405
 [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 02 Feb 2004, 13:20
Those are two difficult questions.

By POE, I get C and B, but I suspect that I'm wrong.

These are Studa questions?

"To what end are all the arts of life?" means, more or less, "What good are the arts of life?", "What is the purpose of the arts of life?" or "What are the arts of life for?"

Kudos [?]: 34 [0], given: 0

Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 03 Jul 2003
Posts: 651

Kudos [?]: 106 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 02 Feb 2004, 13:57
stoolfi wrote:

"To what end are all the arts of life?" means, more or less, "What good are the arts of life?", "What is the purpose of the arts of life?" or "What are the arts of life for?"


Then, can the premise
"If the artificial is not better than the natural, to what end are all the arts of life?"
be losely construed as
"If the artificial is not better than the natural, then aritfical is no good"

Kudos [?]: 106 [0], given: 0

GMAT Club Legend
GMAT Club Legend
avatar
Joined: 15 Dec 2003
Posts: 4284

Kudos [?]: 537 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 02 Feb 2004, 14:05
For the first question, B cannot be the answer as it is a restatement of the premise rather than an assumption. C should be the answer to the first question because if you try to negate it, you will destroy the very argument that the author is trying to prove, that Digging, plowing, building, and wearing clothes, which are artificial and arts of life, are not better than the natural. Still working on the second one which is giving me the goose bumps :?
_________________

Best Regards,

Paul

Kudos [?]: 537 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 30 Aug 2003
Posts: 318

Kudos [?]: 29 [0], given: 0

Location: dallas , tx
 [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 02 Feb 2004, 18:09
I go with C for the first one. not sure abt 2nd qustion
_________________

shubhangi

Kudos [?]: 29 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 23 Aug 2003
Posts: 460

Kudos [?]: 27 [0], given: 0

Location: In the middle of nowhere
 [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 02 Feb 2004, 20:57
A for the first one and E for the 2 nd one...

The first was quite mind-boggling.... :wall

Vivek.
_________________

"Start By Doing What Is Necessary ,Then What Is Possible & Suddenly You Will Realise That You Are Doing The Impossible"

Kudos [?]: 27 [0], given: 0

GMAT Instructor
User avatar
Joined: 07 Jul 2003
Posts: 769

Kudos [?]: 240 [0], given: 0

Location: New York NY 10024
Schools: Haas, MFE; Anderson, MBA; USC, MSEE
Re: LS-T1-CR4-17& 18 [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 03 Feb 2004, 04:56
kpadma wrote:
If the artificial is not better than the natural, to what end are all the arts of life? To dig, to plow, to build, to wear clothesтАФall are direct violations of the injunction to follow nature.

17. Which one of the following is an assumption made by the author of the passage?

(A) The arts of life have no useful end.

(B) The artificial is not better than the natural.

(C) Digging, plowing, building, and wearing clothes are better than nature.

(D) The injunction to follow nature should not be violated.

(E) The arts of life are indirect means of following nature.



18. If the authorтАЩs argument were challenged on the grounds that the construction of buildings has adverse effects on the natural environment, which of the following replies might the author use to respond to the challenge logically?

(A) There are human activities, such as making music, that are environmentally harmless.

(B) Harming the environment is not an end, of purpose, of the arts of life.

(C) The construction could involve the use of natural, not artificial, materials.

(D) Constructing buildings is not an тАЬart of life.тАЭ

(E) Even if the natural environment is disturbed by the construction of buildings, it is improved for human use.

What is the meaning of the phrase "to what end are all the arts of life?"


C and E.The rhetorical question is the first passage asks if "technology" didn't improve life, then why did it evolve in the first place? The unstated/implied assumption is that "arts of life" clearly and obviously are an improvement over raw nature. Hence, while stating the "clothing, et al" violate the "injuction" to follow nature, he implies that there is no reason to follow such injunction if our lives are clearly improved. Another way of analyzing this is to restate the author's point in pure logic:

Premise: If "arts of life" are not better than nature, then we would not have adopted "arts of life" in our culture. (Not P->Not Q)
Premise: We have adopted "arts of life" in our culture. (Q)
Conclusion: "arts of life" are better than nature (P: contrapositive of 1st premise, hence a valid conclusion).

Hence, C is the only choice that fits that interpretation of the stimulus.

Consequently, it is clear that the more important criterion for the author is whether something improves life for humans, not whether it is "natural" (he couldn't care less). This lead to the conclusion that the author would agree most with choice E in the second passage.
_________________

Best,

AkamaiBrah
Former Senior Instructor, Manhattan GMAT and VeritasPrep
Vice President, Midtown NYC Investment Bank, Structured Finance IT
MFE, Haas School of Business, UC Berkeley, Class of 2005
MBA, Anderson School of Management, UCLA, Class of 1993

Kudos [?]: 240 [0], given: 0

Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 03 Jul 2003
Posts: 651

Kudos [?]: 106 [0], given: 0

Re: LS-T1-CR4-17& 18 [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 03 Feb 2004, 15:35
AkamaiBrah wrote:
C and E.The rhetorical question is the first passage asks if "technology" didn't improve life, then why did it evolve in the first place? The unstated/implied assumption is that "arts of life" clearly and obviously are an improvement over raw nature. Hence, while stating the "clothing, et al" violate the "injuction" to follow nature, he implies that there is no reason to follow such injunction if our lives are clearly improved. Another way of analyzing this is to restate the author's point in pure logic:

Premise: If "arts of life" are not better than nature, then we would not have adopted "arts of life" in our culture. (Not P->Not Q)
Premise: We have adopted "arts of life" in our culture. (Q)
Conclusion: "arts of life" are better than nature (P: contrapositive of 1st premise, hence a valid conclusion).

Hence, C is the only choice that fits that interpretation of the stimulus.

Consequently, it is clear that the more important criterion for the author is whether something improves life for humans, not whether it is "natural" (he couldn't care less). This lead to the conclusion that the author would agree most with choice E in the second passage.


What a splindid explanation! Thanks !!

Kudos [?]: 106 [0], given: 0

Re: LS-T1-CR4-17& 18   [#permalink] 03 Feb 2004, 15:35
Display posts from previous: Sort by

If the artificial is not better than the natural, to what

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  

Moderators: GMATNinjaTwo, GMATNinja



GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.