Ok then. Let's break it down.
Premises:
- Some of our federal legislators believe that much of modern photography portrays nudity and is thus obscene.
- Even they would agree that Michelangelo's works of art, most of which depict nudity, are not obscene.
Conclusion:
These federal legislators should not consider modern photography obscene. (He says they are mistaken so basically he is saying that they should not consider it obscene.)

Now think of what logic is being used in the argument above. It simply says:
A has B and is thus considered C.
D also has B but is still not considered C.
So we should not consider A C.

A - Modern photography
B - Nudity
C - Obscene
D - Mich. art

What is the flaw here?
According to the argument, if there is nudity in art it is considered obscene. The reason why Mich's work is not considered obscene in spite of having nudity could be that his work has something else too.

Let me explain this with another example:
My argument:
You have a pen and thus can write.
I have a pen but I cannot write.
So you cannot write either.
What can weaken my argument? How about: I have a broken arm because of which I cannot write in spite of having a pen.

Option (E) tells you that Michelangelo's work has high artistic value. That is why it is not considered obscene in spite of having nudity. This weakens the argument since Michelangelo's work has something extra and the same may not be applicable to modern photography.

Option (D) needn't be considered because general citizenry is not a part of the argument at all. The author is trying to convince the legislators that modern photography should not be considered obscene.

Option (A) has a disconnect with the argument. It says that 'The artistic level of the works of the vast majority of modern photographers does not approach that of Michelangelo's works.' but it doesn't say that Michelangelo's work is not considered obscene because of its high artistic value. It is as if you presented a difference between the two - modern photography and Mich's work but did not say how this difference impacts the argument. e.g. in the example above, if I say, "Your arm is absolutely fine unlike mine which is broken." it is not enough because I haven't said that because of my broken arm, I cannot write. (Remember, I have to mention this to present the relationship. What if my non-writing arm is broken.)

Now, I hope it makes more sense why the answer is (E).
_________________

here we are askd to weaken the argument.
The author states that the legislators were mistaken as they are against the art which depict nudity.but it could be that many others artists find this as an excuse and depict nudity in their art too which must be unnecessary.so the legislators were against these artists.but Michelangelo's works of art,being an exception bcoz of the high artistic value.

so i wud go with E

tough one. I went with D but the arguments for E make sense. but D does weaken to an extent. If legislators have a different view than citizens (including the guy making this statement), then the legislators might believe that michaelangelo's work is not obscene but the new photographer's is then the author's statement "These legislators are mistaken, however, since even they would agree that Michelangelo's works of art, most of which depict nudity, are not obscene" falls apart as the legislators are not mistaken but made a purposeful decision.

E for me. This is because Author's conclusion is that nudity is not obscene as MichaelAngelo's work contained nudity but was not considered obscene. So to weaken the argument all we need to do is state that MichaelAngelo's work is Nudity which is exactly done by E.

@VeritasPrepKarishma :
Option (E) tells you that Michelangelo's work has high artistic value. That is why it is not considered obscene in spite of having nudity. This weakens the argument since Michelangelo's work has something extra and the same may not be applicable to modern photography.

Even here we are assuming that work of contemporary artist is not as good as it is of Michelangelo. It may be that contemporart artists are as good as or even better, and therefore there work would be artistic as well

However from the sentence
"since even they would agree that Michelangelo's works of art, most of which depict nudity, are not obscene"

we get that Michelangelo was more artistic, and therefore A should suit more !!.

Option A: The artistic level of the works of the vast majority of modern photographers does not approach that of Michelangelo's works.

The reason A does not work is that it doesn't tell you how artistic level is related to obscenity. It does not give that if work is artistic, it is not considered obscene. It tells you that M's work is more artistic but so what? It doesn't say that 'more artistic work is not obscene' because of which it is irrelevant to our conclusion (even though in our mind it makes sense). The connection has to be explicitly mentioned.

Logic in the argument:
P has N and is thus considered O.
M also has N but is still not considered O.
So we should not consider P O.


Option A says: P has less A than M.
The point is, how is A related to O? We do not know. No impact on conclusion.

Option E says: M has high A and is hence not O.
Here it gives an explanation why M's work is not considered O. Of course, it doesn't say that modern photography does not have high artistic value but the point is that it leaves open the possibility that it may not have high artistic value and hence weakens the conclusion. (Does not make the conclusion false, but only weakens it)

P - Modern photography
N - Nudity
O - Obscene
M - Mich. art
A - Artistic value

Think it makes more sense now?
_________________

Premise 1 :Some of our federal legislators are opposed to government endowments or other financial support for photography as an art form on the basis that much of modern photography portrays nudity and is thus obscene.

Conclusion : These legislators are mistaken

Premise 2 : since even they would agree that Michelangelo's works of art, most of which depict nudity, are not obscene.

(A) The artistic level of the works of the vast majority of modern photographers does not approach that of Michelangelo's works.
Irrelevant. This information doesn't affect the premise or the conclusion.

(B) Many modern photographic works of art have been displayed in museums alongside Michelangelo's works.
so what ?, no impact

(C) The majority of Michelangelo's work was not funded or otherwise supported by the government.
The discussion is about the legislators and not the funding by the government. Misleading...

(D) What these legislators consider to be obscene does not coincide with what the general citizenry views as obscene.
Comparing legislators viewpoint and general citizens viewpoint doesn't impact the conclusion.

(E) Due to their relatively high artistic value, works of Michelangelo that portray nudity are not considered obscene.[/quote]
This gives a explanation why Premise 2 cannot be used logically to conclude and oppose premise 1. This is the winner !!!

FLs think "modern photography's nudity" is obscene. The argument says - this thought is flawed because "Michelangelo's nudity" was not considered obscene.

So, basically the comparison is between these two works of nudity. To weaken the argument, all you have to do is to show that they both are different forms of nudity.

Option E does just that...

Which one is an argument here? federal legislators's argument stating that modern photography portrays nudity and is thus obscene? or Author's argument stating that federal legislators are mistaken?

If we have to weaken the federal legislators's argument, E is the answer.
If we have to weaken the author's argument, A seems to fit here..

In these kind of questions, where the question stem dint have info of which part to weaken, which part must be taken as argument? Please help..

"The argument" is always the author's argument. The question is what is the author's argument?

It is this:
Premises:
- Some of our federal legislators believe that much of modern photography portrays nudity and is thus obscene.
- Even they would agree that Michelangelo's works of art, most of which depict nudity, are not obscene.
Conclusion:
These federal legislators should not consider modern photography obscene. (He says they are mistaken so basically he is saying that they should not consider it obscene.)

We always weaken the conclusion. So we have to weaken "These federal legislators should not consider modern photography obscene."
We do that by giving additional information - Michelangelo's works have high artistic value.

Check this: some-of-our-federal-legislators-are-opposed-to-government-100711.html#p820294
_________________

Conclusion= The legislators are mistaken as ....... provides us with an example of Michelangelo's work(which depict nudity), but were not considered obscene ..
Our Job is to find out an evidence that gives us some information about modern photography that does not emphasize the same value as those of Michelangelo's works....
Hence, the only option that suits are prethinking is option E

I think the problem here is that D is starting a piece of new information, and that would be the citizens. No where in the stimulus says that legislator's resolution has anything to do with citizens. BE CAREFUL WITH NEW INFORMATION.

Some of our federal legislators are opposed to government endowments or other financial support for photography as an art form on the basis that much of modern photography portrays nudity and is thus obscene. These legislators are mistaken, however, since even they would agree that Michelangelo's works of art, most of which depict nudity, are not obscene.

Nudity => obscene

if we establish that there is a distinction between Michelangelo's works of art, most of which depict nudity & modern photography which also portrays nudity then we can prove legislators right.

Which of the following statements, if true, would most seriously weaken the argument above?

(A) The artistic level of the works of the vast majority of modern photographers does not approach that of Michelangelo's works.

(C) The majority of Michelangelo's work was not funded or otherwise supported by the government. even then Nudity => obscene doesn't break this line of thought.


(E) Due to their relatively high artistic value, works of Michelangelo that portray nudity are not considered obscene.

Between A &E => A is wrong because of ambiguous connection between The artistic level of the works of the vast majority of modern photographers & Michelangelo's works. so what? does that mean artistic level is justified for nudity and therefore obscenity. E makes this clear.

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

The correct answer is (E).

The argument relies on the assumption that Michelangelo’s portrayals of nudity are similar to modern photographic portrayals of nudity in all respects relevant to the argument. Choice (E) directly refutes this assumption by stating explicitly that Michelangelo’s works are considered not obscene for the reason that they have relatively high artistic value.
_________________