In recent years many cabinetmakers have been winning acclaim as artist

A -- Weakens the conclusion. Is not an assumption in that it does not fill in any hole in the argument. To some extent even contradicts the premises.

B -- This unnecessarily distinguishes between cabinetmakers. May strengthen the conclusion but does not fill in the logic gap.

C -- Red herring choice. Notice thw word currently. While this may be true, it is neither supported by the argument nor connected with the conclusion. Out of scope.

D -- correct answer. Connects the premise 'since furn must be useful, CM should pay attention to utility' to conc 'CM is not an art'

E -- Out of scope. $ is nowhere in the argument!

In recent years, many cabinetmakers have been winning acclaim as artists. But since furniture must be useful, cabinetmakers must exercise their craft with an eye to the practical utility of their product. For this reason, cabinetmaking is not art.

Which of the following is an assumption that supports drawing the conclusion above from the reason given for that conclusion?

(A) Some furniture is made to be placed in museums, where it will not be used by anyone.

(B) Some cabinetmakers are more concerned than others with the practical utility of the products they produce.

(C) Cabinetmakers should be more concerned with the practical utility of their products than they currently are.

(D) An object is not an art object if its maker pays attention to the object’s practical utility.

(E) Artists are not concerned with the monetary value of their products.



Also i am a little confused from the meaning of the argument.


>>> But since furniture must be useful, cabinetmakers must exercise their craft with an eye to the practical utility of their product
means -- since furniture should be useful; CMs should keep that in mind ; as if they are not currently doing so and author is saying they should make USEFUL cabinets
"must" gives a futuristic view. So we are not sure what kind of cabinets are being currently made. thus we cant say why it cant be an art.

Hello,

The argument implies that currently many cabinetmakers win acclaim as artists. However, cabinetmakers also need to pay attention to the utility of the cabinets and hence, cabinet making is not an art.

This depends on the assumption that while making something , if you need to consider its utility, then it is not an art form. This is directly mentioned in D. However, let us analyze the rest of the options. Let us try the negation test to check this.

(A) Some furniture is made to be placed in museums, where it will not be used by anyone. This is irrelevant.
(B) Some cabinetmakers are more concerned than others with the practical utility of the products they produce. Some cabinetmakers might be more concerned with the utility of their products. However, this does not imply that their work is not an art form. This option does not give us any relationship between cabinetmaking and art form.
(C) Cabinetmakers should be more concerned with the practical utility of their products than they currently are. This suggests that the cabinetmakers need to more concerned with the practical utility of their products. However, it does not tell us whether cabinetmaking is an art form or not.
(D) An object is not an art object if its maker pays attention to the object’s practical utility. Might be the assumption.
(E) Artists are not concerned with the monetary value of their products. The negative of this is that artists are concerned with the monetary value of their products. However, does this cause the conclusion to fail? The conclusion still stands as the decision of whether cabinetmaking is an art or not does not depend on its monetary value in this argument. The conclusion depends on whether it can be considered an art form if it is made with some purpose or utility in mind.

Regarding your second question, the statement "But since furniture must be useful, cabinetmakers must exercise their craft with an eye to the practical utility of their product" implies that since furniture need to be useful, cabinetmakers have to consider the utility of the furniture. The "must" in the argument does not give a futuristic outlook. Rather, it highlights the necessity of considering the utility of the cabinet while constructing it.

Hopefully this clarified your doubt. Please let me know if you need any further clarification.

Okay. Let's consider this statement:

Since Karan's GMAT score must be high, Karan must prepare for GMAT with an eye to the clarity of the concepts.

Can we infer any of the following from the above statement?

1. Karan's current GMAT score is high, and he prepares for the GMAT with an eye to the clarity of the concepts.
2. Karan's current GMAT score is not high, and he does not prepare for the GMAT with an eye to the clarity of the concepts.

- CJ

So, do you see why none of your two interpretations of the following statement were correct?

But since furniture must be useful, cabinetmakers must exercise their craft with an eye to the practical utility of their product.

(A) Some furniture is made to be placed in museums, where it will not be used by anyone.
Reason: If furnitures are made to be placed in the museum without let anyone use them then they are very likely consider to be piece of art., thus contradict the argument
(B) Some cabinetmakers are more concerned than others with the practical utility of the products they produce.
Reason: Comaprison among cabinetmarkers but not focus on usefulness of product, out of context
(C) Cabinetmakers should be more concerned with the practical utility of their products than they currently are.
Reason: this is moreover a suggestion or advice , not giving solid reason
(D) An object is not an art object if its maker pays attention to the object’s practical utility.
Reason: This is like "If concern with Practicla utility -----> object is not art" forms solid foundation for the conclusion that if cabinetmaking is more concern with practical utility then it cant be consider as an art.
(E) Artists are not concerned with the monetary value of their products.
Reason: There is no discussion of monetary values and how they are related to practical Utility or art.

Hello z3nith,



Since furniture must be useful <- it is the a proprety of furniture : every furniture is useful .

Cabinetmakers are producing furniture which is useful ... and CM don't create objects other than furniture (definition of CM). Hence, they are always creating usefull products . Then we can deduce that they see utility of the object they're creating !

Premise: cabinetmakers = artists
Premise: Currently, cabinetmakers pay more attention to practical utility.
Conclusion: cabinetmaking is not art.

Assumption: practical utility is different from art. Objects that are more practical will not be considered art.

D is correct.

Conclusion: cabinetmaking is not art

Premise: 1) cabinetmakers must exercise their craft with an eye to the practical utility of their product
2)In recent years many cabinetmakers have been winning acclaim as artists

Assumption: 1) Artist wont give a object for practical use / Artist is not concerned about practical utility of the product

A. Some furniture is made to be placed in museums, where it will not be used by anyone. - Irrelevant. Furniture placed in museum has nothing to do with the Cabinetmakers

B. Some cabinetmakers are more concerned than others with the practical utility of the products they produce. - Comparison of the cabinet makers can not prove they are not artists

C. Cabinetmakers should be more concerned with the practical utility of their products than they currently are. - Given in the premise. so this cannot be the answer

D. An object is not an art object if its maker pays attention to the objects practical utility. - Fills the gap between the premise and conclusion

E. Artists are not concerned with the monetary value of their products. - Out of scope. we have nothing to with artist monetary value

Regards,
Swami.

In recent years many cabinetmakers have been winning acclaim as artists. But since furniture must be useful, cabinetmakers must exercise their craft with an eye to the practical utility of their product. For this reason, cabinetmaking is not art.

Which of the following is an assumption that supports drawing the conclusion above from the reason given for that conclusion?

A. Some furniture is made to be placed in museums, where it will not be used by anyone.
It says some furniture and in premise they are talking about all the furniture to be and cabinetmaking is not art.

B. Some cabinetmakers are more concerned than others with the practical utility of the products they produce.
Again only talks about some where as the conclusion is on extreme side.

C. Cabinetmakers should be more concerned with the practical utility of their products than they currently are.
This is giving a suggestion, and not an assumption. The word should be denotes future tense.

D. An object is not an art object if its maker pays attention to the objects practical utility.
This gives an definition of the word "Art" which is important for us the segregate and decide if the cabinetmakers are artist or not.

E. Artists are not concerned with the monetary value of their products.
Out of context. Money is not even mentioned here.

This is an assumption question with 'art' introduced in the conclusion which should be a sign that a supporter assumption is required to support the conclusion.

Premise states cabinet makers have to ensure that their cabinets are practical.

However due to this reason, they are not art.

Which leads us to believe that practical objects cant be considered art/artistic.

The author concludes that Cabinet making is not art. This is based on the fact that cabinetmakers design their products with a practical element.
The passage provides background info: In recent years many cabinetmakers have been winning acclaim as artists.

Note: "Art" is a rogue piece of evidence presented in the conclusion and not found elsewhere in the argument.
A - completely irrelevant to the argument, so why would it be assumed?
B - the argument isn't about comparing cabinetmakers among themselves
C - the argument does not conclude that cabinetmakers should be MORE concerned with practical utility; instead, it states that cabinetmakers are already concerned with the practical utility, which is why their craft isn't considered 'art'
D - this ties the practical utility (evidence) to the conclusion
E - is completely irrelevant to the argument made.

Hi Karan,

Let's look at the following sentence:

Since food must be tasty, mothers must prepare food with an eye to the spiciness of the food.

Now, let me know whether your two interpretations apply to this statement?

- CJ

Conclusion: Cabinetmaking is not an art because cabinetmakers must pay close attention to the practical utility of their products.
Now let's use the negation technique. This means we'll negate each answer choice, and the correct answer will be the one that, when negated, destroys the conclusion.

A. It is not the case that some furniture is made to be placed in museums, where it will not be used by anyone.
This negated answer does not destroy the conclusion. So it is not the correct answer.

B. It is not the case that some cabinetmakers are more concerned than others with the practical utility of the products they produce.
This negated answer does not destroy the conclusion. So it is not the correct answer.

C. It is not the case that cabinetmakers should be more concerned with the practical utility of their products than they currently are.
This negated answer does not destroy the conclusion. So it is not the correct answer.

D. It is not the case that an object is not an art object if its maker pays attention to the object's practical utility.
In other words, an object CAN BE an art object if the maker pays attention to the object's practical utility.
As you can see, this negated answer choice destroys the conclusion (Cabinetmaking is not an art because cabinetmakers must pay close attention to the practical utility of their products.)

E. It is not the case that artists are not concerned with the monetary value of their products.
This negated answer does not destroy the conclusion. So it is not the correct answer.


So, D must be the correct answer

GMATNinja ChiranjeevSingh

Are two different interpretations not possible from the below premise?

"But since furniture must be useful, cabinetmakers must exercise their craft with an eye to the practical utility of their product"


Interpretation 1: Cabinetmaking is useful and and cabinetmakers exercise their craft with an eye to the practical utility of product.

Interpretation 2:[/b] Cabinetmaking is not useful (and it must be) and and cabinetmakers do not exercise their craft with an eye to the practical utility of product(and they must start).

I went with 2nd interpretation and ended up choosing the answer choice C.

Can you please suggest how to avoid such wrong interpretations.

Hi CJ,

I think 2 interpretations are still possible.

Regards,
Karan

No CJ. None of the two statements can be inferred.