Shanna: Owners of any work of art, simply by virtue of ownership, ethi

Seldom is something which skews this answer. Moreover it is uniqueness rather than valueable-ness of the painting which differs the opinion between two speakers.

OE says that Answer choice (C) states that valuable paintings are seldom destroyed by their owners. Whether or not this occurs is a factual issue that can be determined by examining records, etc.
And since the argument is ethical, so any factual answer ie C or E could be answer.

It is uniqueness of art and not Non-uniqueness which is creating problems here, so presence of "non-uniqueness" makes this choice incorrect.

As per OE==>
Other wrong answer choices will supply statements that both speakers would agree with, or that both speakers would disagree with. Answer choice (D) is incorrect because both speakers would agree with the statement. Shanna would agree because her ownership beliefs allow for the destruction of any owned artwork. Jorge would agree because the sculpture in question is not unique, and thus does not meet the qualifications Jorge imposed in his argument. If both speakers have the same opinion about an answer choice, then that answer choice must be wrong in a Point at Issue question.

Even I selected this, but it has been rejected by OE. OE says that E is factual and I am facing trouble in sorting out options as factual and ethical in my selection that is why I posted this question in order to get some idea if some one could help me in finding how factual and ethical answers are to be located.

OE for rejecting E ==> Answer choice (E) discusses the legal permissibility of destroying a valuable mural. Whether or not it is legally permissible to destroy the mural is also a factual issue, not a moral issue.

It shouldn't be B as question is about destroying and not viewing of paintings.

I would go with A.

B) irrelevant
C) Is a stated fact. Disagreements on these would not be along the lines of whether intentional destruction is justified or not. They would rather be along the lines of whether it occurs or not... therefore wrong
D) Their is no disagreement between the two on this issue as even Jorge only argues agains the right to destroy UNIQUE objects of art and not all objects of art. so wrong
E) The legality is not in question. irrelevant.

A by POE and also because it refers to the destruction of a work of art being justified simply because the person destroying it is the owner.. the object is also presumably unique because it is a portrait of the owners father. A fits best. Good question.

OA is A. Thanks for discussion, guys.
Though if anyone could post on how to differentiate between ethical and factual choices, it would be helpful.

Is E wrong because we are talking about legal obligation ?

Your understanding is correct. If one of the persons said that it is legal to destroy artwork and the other said it is illegal, then option E would be correct.

Was thinking about A, but sided with B. The reason i steered clear of A was because it did not mention anything about " aesthetic or historical
value", which the second argument hinges on. Instead, I felt that B was closer to the original argument as instead of destroying a piece of work, an individual could just file it away forever, never to be seen again.

Could someone give me their two cents on this?

Hi experts,
But how can the portrait in option A has any historical value?
Jorge presents his view on unique artworks,not any form of art just like a simple portrait of anyone's father.

Thanks

The portrait may have aesthetic value (Jorge argues about portraits with aesthetic OR historical value).

One may argue that since a portrait owned by him / her depicts his / her own father, he / she has the right to destroy it. Shanna would agree with this person, indicating that owning the artwork is enough to have the right to destroy it, but Jorge would disagree, indicating that the portrait may be aesthetically valuable, and thus the owner does not have right to destroy it.

B is out of scope because the difference in Shanna's view and Jorge's view is not about whether the artwork should be made available for public vieweing, but about the right to destroy an artwork. My above post explains why option A is correct.

We have to select the option for which both Shanna and Jorge disagree (Please correct if I am wrong).
Then how come A is correct ?
It will be really helpful if you can explain all the options

If we say that we disagree about some point, the statement implies that we are on the opposite sides about that point.

We dont know if the portrait is valuable or not.

Ans : (A)

In simpler terms, the question stem asks us to find the statement amongst the choices that one person in the dialogue would consider true and that the other person would consider false. Understanding what the testmakers are after here helps us to conceive of a logical test for each choice.

Take (A), for example. What would Shanna think of the truth of this statement? She would think it was true, right? Sure—if you don’t like it, according to Shanna, you’re ethically justified, “for that reason alone,” to destroy it.
Would Jorge have an opinion regarding the truth of the statement in (A)? Yes—he would not believe the owner of such a portrait can ethically destroy it “for that reason alone.” Based on his argument, he would impose another restriction: The painting must not be “a unique work of art with aesthetic or moral value.” If it is, then it should not be destroyed.

Shanna would agree with the truth of (A), while Jorge would not, which means that (A) is the answer we seek.

(B) Public viewing is beyond the scope of both arguments. The issue here is the right to destroy versus the obligation to preserve.

(C) and (E) are out of the scope. The issue here is whether and under what circumstances it is morally permissible to destroy works of art. Whether intentional damage and destruction happens often or not, (C), is irrelevant to this question. As for (E), what does legal permissibility have to do with moral permissibility?

(D) Shanna would agree with this statement even if the piece of sculpture were unique. We can infer that Jorge would agree with this statement as well; his mandate for preservation applies only to unique works of art. So (D) turns out to be an au-contraire choice, as both parties would seem to agree, not disagree, about the truth of this statement.

• Mind those scope shifts! The word “legally” in choice (E) should stick out like a sore thumb.
• This is an offshoot of a Point-at-Issue question, but unlike a typical Point-at-Issue question, we’re not asked for the specific idea that comes between Shanna and Jorge. Rather, we’re asked to use what we know about the discrepancy in their positions to recognize a statement that one would regard as true and the other would regard as false. (That is, after all, what “disagreeing about the truth of a statement” means. Always translate a confusing-sounding or complex stem in order to get it into a form that’s easier to use.)

Shanna: Owners of any work of art, simply by virtue of ownership, ethically have the right to destroy that artwork if they find it morally or aesthetically distasteful, or if caring for it becomes inconvenient.

Jorge: Ownership of unique artworks, unlike ownership of other kinds of objects, carries the moral right to possess but not to destroy. A unique work of art with aesthetic or historical value belongs to posterity and so must be preserved, whatever the personal wishes of its legal owner.

Basically, Shanna said that the ownership enables owner to destroy a work of art at his will. Jorge countered by saying that the ownership doesn't mean that the owner has the right to destroy the art. So they are disagree about if the ownership allows possessor to destroy an art at this will

On the basis of their statements, Shanna and Jorge are committed to disagreeing about the truth of which one of the following statements?


(A) Anyone who owns a portrait presenting his or her father in an unflattering light would for that reason alone be ethically justified in destroying it. Yes. It truly states the git of the disagreement: if the art doesn't please me, could I destroy it?

(B) People who own aesthetically valuable works of art have no moral obligation to make them available for public viewing. This is not what the two are quarreling about. No moral obligation is mentioned by Shanna

(C) Valuable paintings by well-known artists are seldom intentionally damaged or destroyed by their owners. We care about if owner has the right to destroy his art, not about this conscious intention

(D) If a piece of sculpture is not unique, its owner has no ethical obligation to preserve it if doing so proves burdensome. The statement talks about art in general, not about unique art

(E) It is legally permissible for a unique and historically valuable mural to be destroyed by its owner if he or she tires of it. Same with D