Last visit was: 17 May 2026, 20:10 It is currently 17 May 2026, 20:10
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
User avatar
IanStewart
User avatar
GMAT Tutor
Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Last visit: 17 May 2026
Posts: 4,146
Own Kudos:
11,321
 [1]
Given Kudos: 98
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V47
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V47
Posts: 4,146
Kudos: 11,321
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
kornn
Joined: 28 Jan 2017
Last visit: 18 Dec 2021
Posts: 356
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 832
Posts: 356
Kudos: 99
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
kornn
Joined: 28 Jan 2017
Last visit: 18 Dec 2021
Posts: 356
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 832
Posts: 356
Kudos: 99
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
nightblade354
User avatar
Current Student
Joined: 31 Jul 2017
Last visit: 15 May 2026
Posts: 1,767
Own Kudos:
7,131
 [1]
Given Kudos: 3,305
Status:He came. He saw. He conquered. -- Going to Business School -- Corruptus in Extremis
Location: United States (MA)
Concentration: Finance, Economics
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 1,767
Kudos: 7,131
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
varotkorn,

No pre-modern general theory of art explains any aesthetic feature of music that is not shared with painting and sculpture.

Just use the negatives to counter each other and you get: pre-modern general theory of art explains any aesthetic feature of music that is shared with painting and sculpture: Aesthetic feature shared with music --> Pre modern art explains it.
User avatar
GMATGuruNY
Joined: 04 Aug 2010
Last visit: 17 May 2026
Posts: 1,347
Own Kudos:
3,919
 [1]
Given Kudos: 9
Schools:Dartmouth College
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 1,347
Kudos: 3,919
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
E: No pre-modern general theory of art explains any aesthetic feature of music that is not shared with painting and sculpture.

Let's say three are pre-modern general theories (A, B and C) and three aesthetic features of music not shared with painting and sculpture (X, Y and Z).

Answer choice E conveys the following meaning:
Theory A cannot explain X.
Theory A cannot explain Y.
Theory A cannot explain Z.

In short:
Theory A can explain NONE of the three features.
Put another way:
Theory A cannot explain ANY of the three features.

Similarly:
Theory B cannot explain X.
Theory B cannot explain Y.
Theory B cannot explain Z.

In short:
Theory B can explain NONE of the three features.
Put another way:
Theory B cannot explain ANY of the three features.

Lastly:
Theory C cannot explain X.
Theory C cannot explain Y.
Theory C cannot explain Z.

In short:
Theory C can explain NONE of the three features.
Put another way:
Theory C cannot explain ANY of the three features.

The result is the following:
NONE of the three theories can explain ANY of the three features.
In other words:
NO pre-modern theory can explain ANY of the three features.
This is the meaning conveyed by E.

varotkorn


Is this interpretation in choice E. correct?

"NO pre-modern general theory of art explains ANY aesthetic feature of music that is not shared with painting and sculpture."

= ALL pre-modern general theory does NOT explain ANY aesthetic feature of music ...

Here, ANY here means 1 or more, NOT necessarily ALL, right?

Thank you!

Your understanding seems correct.
User avatar
kornn
Joined: 28 Jan 2017
Last visit: 18 Dec 2021
Posts: 356
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 832
Posts: 356
Kudos: 99
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
GMATGuruNY

Let's say there are three girls in John's school:
Amy, Betty and Cindy

No girl attended John's party.
Here, the number of girls who attended = 0.

All of the girls did not attend John's party.
Here, the number of girls who attended ≤ 2.
It is possible that Amy and Betty attended, but Cindy did not.
It is possible that Amy attended, but Betty and Cindy did not.
We know only the following:
It is not possible that ALL THREE GIRLS -- Amy, Betty and Cindy -- attended.

The statement in red does not convey the same meaning as the statement in blue.

Dear GMATGuruNY,

Thank you for your response.
However, I am a little bit confused on red sentence above.

Please consider analogous examples below:
ALL of marbles are NOT mine.
Is it not the same as NO marbles are mine?

Can ALL of marbles are NOT mine. mean one marble is mine (or perhaps two marbles are mine)?

IMO, ALL of marbles are NOT mine. means ALL are NOT mine.

Similarly, when saying ALL of you are NOT good people!, can this mean one person is still a good person?

==============================================
GMATGuruNY

All of the girls did not attend John's party.
Here, the number of girls who attended ≤ 2.
PS. I do agree with the above if the sentence were NOT ALL of the girls attended John's party.

Thank you in advance! :please :please :please
User avatar
GMATGuruNY
Joined: 04 Aug 2010
Last visit: 17 May 2026
Posts: 1,347
Own Kudos:
3,919
 [1]
Given Kudos: 9
Schools:Dartmouth College
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 1,347
Kudos: 3,919
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
varotkorn
IMO, ALL of marbles are NOT mine. means ALL are NOT mine.

Your understanding is correct.
Given that we are discussing an LSAT CR, I've corrected my previous response to align better with the rules of formal logic and thus the rules of the LSAT.
For the purposes of the LSAT:
All A's are not B = If A, then not B.
Thus:
All of the marbles are not red = If an object is a marble, then the object is not red.
In other words:
NONE OF THE MARBLES is red.
User avatar
KarishmaB
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 13 May 2026
Posts: 16,465
Own Kudos:
79,641
 [1]
Given Kudos: 485
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,465
Kudos: 79,641
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
GMATFIGHTER
The purpose of a general theory of art is to explain every aesthetic feature that is found in any of the arts. Pre-modern general theories of art, however, focused primarily on painting and sculpture. Every pre-modern general theory of art, even those that succeed as theories of painting or sculpture, fails to explain some aesthetic feature of music.

The statements above, if true, most strongly support which one of following?

(A) Any general theory of art that explains the aesthetic features of painting also explains those of sculpture.
(B) A general theory of art that explains every aesthetic feature of music will achieve its purpose.
(C) Any theory of art that focus primarily on sculpture or painting cannot explain every aesthetic feature of music.
(D) No pre-modern general theory of art achieves its purpose unless music is not art.
(E) No pre-modern general theory of art explains any aesthetic feature of music that is not shared with painting and sculpture.

Source : PrepTest 36 - December 2001 LSAT #Q17

Quote:

Is this interpretation in choice E. correct?

"NO pre-modern general theory of art explains ANY aesthetic feature of music that is not shared with painting and sculpture."

= ALL pre-modern general theory does NOT explain ANY aesthetic feature of music ...

Here, ANY here means 1 or more, NOT necessarily ALL, right?

Yes, it is. It means:
All pre modern theories do NOT explain even one feature of music that music doesn't share with painting and sculpture.
User avatar
Kushchokhani
Joined: 05 Jan 2020
Last visit: 03 Apr 2024
Posts: 508
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 692
Status:Admitted to IIM Shillong (PGPEx 2023-24)
Affiliations: CFA Institute; ICAI; BCAS
Location: India
WE 2: EA to CFO (Consumer Products)
GPA: 3.78
WE:Corporate Finance (Commercial Banking)
Products:
Posts: 508
Kudos: 656
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Nevernevergiveup
d) unless sth is not false means sth is true
Nevernevergiveup

I think "unless sth is not false" means "unless sth is true" or "sth is false".

Both the negatives i.e. unless and not when removed will give us "sth is false". Please explain.
User avatar
GMATGuruNY
Joined: 04 Aug 2010
Last visit: 17 May 2026
Posts: 1,347
Own Kudos:
3,919
 [4]
Given Kudos: 9
Schools:Dartmouth College
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 1,347
Kudos: 3,919
 [4]
3
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Kushchokhani
I think "unless sth is not false" means "unless sth is true" or "sth is false".

This line of reasoning is correct.

not false = true
unless = if not
not true = false

Thus:
Unless A is not false = Unless A is true = If A is not true = If A is false
User avatar
VerbalBot
User avatar
Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Last visit: 04 Jan 2021
Posts: 19,427
Own Kudos:
Posts: 19,427
Kudos: 1,012
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot:

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

This post was generated automatically.
   1   2 
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7393 posts
575 posts
368 posts