If the artificial is not better than the natural, to what end are all

Question

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 clothes—all are direct violations of the injunction to follow nature.

If the author’s 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, or purpose, of the arts of life.

(C) The construction could involve the use of natural, not artificial, materials.

(D) Constructing buildings is not an “art of life.”

(E) Even if the natural environment is disturbed by the construction of buildings, it is improved for human use.

globaldesi · Answer

The author is comparing forms art of life and only D helps author validate that since construction is not art of life.
It is out of scope

Harsh2111s · Answer

Can anyone explain the question?

CrackverbalGMAT · Answer

I chose (E). Pre-thinking went like this.

The author's argument clearly is that "artificial" can be "better than natural". To this end, he/she presents as examples several skills such as digging, ploughing, building and wearing clothes. We need to identify what is common among these skills / activities since these form the basis of the author's argument.

While at first glance, they appear quite disparate (digging and ploughing are brute force activities, building today is a highly technological activity which wearing clothes is a matter of taste and art), we can identify that all of these activities are indulged in by human beings in order to achieve some purpose:

i) Digging - a wide variety of reasons, from laying foundations to burials.
ii) Ploughing - to grow crops and feed ourselves.
iii) Building - to make homes to live in.
iv) Wearing clothes - to protect us from the vagaries of nature (basic purpose).

The only thing all of these appear to have in common is that they, in some way, improve the lives of humans.

With this in mind, let us approach the options:

(A) There are human activities, such as making music, that are environmentally harmless.  The author does not argue that "artificial is better than natural" because some activities do not harm the environment. Therefore, this is unlikely to be the author's counter argument.

(B) Harming the environment is not an end, or purpose, of the arts of life.  The author does not defend the "artificial" because its intention is not to harm the environment. In fact, nowhere in the argument does  intent  play any role. Incorrect.

(C) The construction could involve the use of natural, not artificial, materials.  The author's does not focus on the  means  of performing the arts at all. His/her argument is that "artificial" need not be worse than "natural" simply because of the wide variety of activities that result in something "artificial". Therefore, the use of materials is irrelevant to the author's argument.

(D) Constructing buildings is not an “art of life.”  The author explicitly lists "building" as an art of life. Incorrect.

(E) Even if the natural environment is disturbed by the construction of buildings, it is improved for human use.  This is consistent with our pre-thinking. Correct.

Hope this helps.

deepverma · Answer

f 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 clothes—all are direct violations of the injunction to follow nature. = > Author questions if artificial is not better why there will be any thing such digging, building, cloths ? As all r violation but also arts of life(making life more beautiful and ease)

If the author’s 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?  => Question mentioned a critics/ weakening statement "the construction of buildings has adverse effects on the natural environment" and asking to critisizing this , in turn strengthening Authors argument with respect to this crtitic statement.  
 Prethink  (strengthening): Construction of building is violation but represents art of life.

(A) There are human activities, such as making music, that are
environmentally harmless. :  True but not addressing the challenge "construction of buildings"

(B) Harming the environment is not an end, or purpose, of the arts of life.  Irrelevant
 
(C) The construction could involve the use of natural, not artificial, materials.  Irrelevant

(D) Constructing buildings is not an “art of life.”  Opposite ; weakning authors arguemnt

(E) Even if the natural environment is disturbed by the construction of buildings, it is improved for human use.  Correct

VerbalBot · Answer

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.

If the artificial is not better than the natural, to what end are all

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

If the artificial is not better than the natural, to what end are all

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards