Last visit was: 02 Sep 2026, 17:10 It is currently 02 Sep 2026, 17:10
Home
Messages
Tests
Schools
Events
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.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
Back to Forum
Create Topic
705-805 (Hard)|   Weaken|      
User avatar
$!vakumar.m
User avatar
Joined: 06 Dec 2021
Last visit: 25 Aug 2025
Posts: 487
Own Kudos:
658
 [19]
Given Kudos: 737
Location: India
Concentration: Technology, International Business
GPA: 4
WE:Human Resources (Telecommunications)
Posts: 487
Kudos: 658
 [19]
Not all works of art represent something, but some do, and their doing 10 Jul 2023, 19:15
Kudos
Add Kudos
19
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
00:00
Start Timer
Pause Timer
Resume Timer
Show Answer
Hide
Show
History
C
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!

Difficulty:

75% (hard)

Question Stats:

58% (02:31) correct 42% (02:30) wrong based on 477 sessions

History

Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Not all works of art represent something, but some do, and their doing so is relevant to our aesthetic experience of them; representation is therefore an aesthetically relevant property. Whether a work of art possesses this property is dependent upon context. Yet there are no clear criteria for determining whether context-dependent properties are present in an object, so there cannot be any clear criteria for determining whether an object qualifies as art.

The reasoning above is questionable because it fails to exclude the possibility that

A. because some works of art are nonrepresentational, there is no way of judging our aesthetic experience of them

B. an object may have some aesthetic properties and not be a work of art

C. aesthetically relevant properties other than representation can determine whether an object is a work of art

D. some works of art may have properties that are not relevant to our aesthetic experience of them

E. some objects that represent things other than themselves are not works of art
ShowHide Answer
Official Answer
C
User avatar
Kukee
User avatar
Joined: 22 Jun 2023
Last visit: 26 Sep 2023
Posts: 10
Own Kudos:
8
 [2]
Given Kudos: 26
Posts: 10
Kudos: 8
 [2]
Not all works of art represent something, but some do, and their doing 12 Jul 2023, 11:50
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
So, basically the passage in simple terms suggest that art depends on representation and representation depends on context. Since,context cannot be defined,thus art cannot be ascertained. It can be considered a circular reasoning question.

Now, moving on to options:

A - no where author has talked about judging art by aesthetics. Thus,A doesn't qualify.

B - Partially,it supports the argument that art is not dependent on aesthetics but stem argues that it depends on representation. No where this option suggests so.

C - Now, this is the CORRECT answer. It says that art doesn't only depend on representation. It also depends on something else. Absolutely weakened the question stem.

D - same as option B

E - this option somewhere connects representation and artwork positively. Hence,it doesn't weaken.

Correct answer - C

Posted from my mobile device
User avatar
Saviooo
User avatar
Joined: 20 Apr 2025
Last visit: 27 Aug 2026
Posts: 23
Own Kudos:
16
 [1]
Given Kudos: 14
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Entrepreneurship
Schools: ESSEC MiM '27
WE:Education (Other)
Products:
Forum Quiz
Schools: ESSEC MiM '27
Posts: 23
Kudos: 16
 [1]
Not all works of art represent something, but some do, and their doing 10 Jun 2026, 00:34
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
The author is trying to prove that there are no clear rules to decide if an object qualifies as art.
but the first sentence “Not all works of art represent something...” itself states that representation is just one possible feature of art among many. Then why does a lack of clear rules for representation suddenly mean we can't identify art at all? why does a lack of clear rules for representation suddenly mean we can't identify art at all?

(A) The author's conclusion is about whether we can identify an object as art, not about how we judge our experience of nonrepresentational art.
(B) The argument doesn't need to worry about non-art objects having aesthetic properties. It is strictly trying to solve the riddle of how we identify actual art.
(C) Correct answer.The argument fails because it overlooks the possibility that other aesthetically relevant properties (besides representation) could give us clear criteria to determine if something is art.
(D) The argument acknowledges right at the start that not all properties matter to the aesthetic experience. Pointing this out again doesn't fix or break the logic.
(E) Just because a stop sign or a map represents something doesn't mean it's art. The author doesn't need to rule this out because they never claimed everything that represents something is art.
User avatar
egmat
User avatar
e-GMAT Representative
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Last visit: 02 Sep 2026
Posts: 6,287
Own Kudos:
33,892
Given Kudos: 715
GMAT Date: 08-19-2020
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 6,287
Kudos: 33,892
Not all works of art represent something, but some do, and their doing 10 Jun 2026, 07:16
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hi Saviooo,

You've actually spotted the exact crack in the argument. Your instinct is right; the trick is to see that it's the author, not you, who quietly forgets that representation is only one property of art.

Look at how the argument moves:

- Representation is one aesthetically relevant property.
- Whether a work has that property is context-dependent.
- We have no clear criteria for context-dependent properties.
- Therefore there are no clear criteria for whether an object qualifies as art at all.

The jump happens at the last step. To get from "we can't pin down representation" to "we can't identify art," the author has to assume that representation is the only thing that could tell us whether something is art. Only then does a problem with representation become a problem for identifying art in general.

That assumption is never stated - and it's exactly the possibility the argument "fails to exclude." This is a fill-in-the-flaw question, so the answer names the gap the author left open.

That's choice C: aesthetically relevant properties other than representation could determine whether an object is art. If such properties exist, the murkiness around representation doesn't sink the whole project - we'd just identify art some other way. So your observation isn't a contradiction of the answer; it is the answer.

Quick way to feel it: suppose the argument said "color is one relevant property, color is hard to judge, so we can't identify art." You'd immediately ask, "What about all the other properties?" That missing-other-properties question is C.

Answer: C

Saviooo
The author is trying to prove that there are no clear rules to decide if an object qualifies as art.
but the first sentence “Not all works of art represent something...” itself states that representation is just one possible feature of art among many. Then why does a lack of clear rules for representation suddenly mean we can't identify art at all? why does a lack of clear rules for representation suddenly mean we can't identify art at all?

(A) The author's conclusion is about whether we can identify an object as art, not about how we judge our experience of nonrepresentational art.
(B) The argument doesn't need to worry about non-art objects having aesthetic properties. It is strictly trying to solve the riddle of how we identify actual art.
(C) Correct answer.The argument fails because it overlooks the possibility that other aesthetically relevant properties (besides representation) could give us clear criteria to determine if something is art.
(D) The argument acknowledges right at the start that not all properties matter to the aesthetic experience. Pointing this out again doesn't fix or break the logic.
(E) Just because a stop sign or a map represents something doesn't mean it's art. The author doesn't need to rule this out because they never claimed everything that represents something is art.
Show more
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7399 posts
AbhishekP220108
Verbal Forum Moderator
705 posts