If the artificial is not better than the natural, to what : GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR)
Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases https://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 23 Feb 2017, 11:30

### 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

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

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

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

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Director
Joined: 03 Jul 2003
Posts: 652
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 92 [0], given: 0

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

### Show Tags

02 Feb 2004, 12:10
00:00

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?"
If you have any questions
New!
Director
Joined: 28 Oct 2003
Posts: 501
Location: 55405
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 24 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

02 Feb 2004, 12:20
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?"
Director
Joined: 03 Jul 2003
Posts: 652
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 92 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

02 Feb 2004, 12:57
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"
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 15 Dec 2003
Posts: 4302
Followers: 40

Kudos [?]: 438 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

02 Feb 2004, 13:05
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

Senior Manager
Joined: 30 Aug 2003
Posts: 324
Location: dallas , tx
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 26 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

02 Feb 2004, 17:09
I go with C for the first one. not sure abt 2nd qustion
_________________

shubhangi

Senior Manager
Joined: 23 Aug 2003
Posts: 461
Location: In the middle of nowhere
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 23 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

02 Feb 2004, 19:57
A for the first one and E for the 2 nd one...

The first was quite mind-boggling....

Vivek.
_________________

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

GMAT Instructor
Joined: 07 Jul 2003
Posts: 770
Location: New York NY 10024
Schools: Haas, MFE; Anderson, MBA; USC, MSEE
Followers: 25

Kudos [?]: 207 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

03 Feb 2004, 03:56
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

Director
Joined: 03 Jul 2003
Posts: 652
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 92 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

03 Feb 2004, 14:35
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 !!
Re: LS-T1-CR4-17& 18   [#permalink] 03 Feb 2004, 14:35
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
If the artificial is not better than the natural, to what 5 13 Jun 2010, 00:25
If the artificial is not better than the natural, to what 1 21 Jun 2009, 01:21
2 If the artificial is not better than the natural, to what 7 17 Jun 2009, 06:38
7 If the artificial is not better than the natural, to what 11 29 May 2008, 23:28
1 If the artificial is not better than the natural, to what 8 29 Jan 2008, 00:29
Display posts from previous: Sort by