Events & Promotions
|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Apr 2301:30 AM EDT
-02:30 AM EDT
Struggling with GMAT Verbal as a non-native speaker? Harsh improved his score from 595 to 695 in just 45 days—and scored a 99 %ile in Verbal (V88)! Learn how smart strategy, clarity, and guided prep helped him gain 100 points.
Apr 2212:30 AM EDT
-01:30 AM EDT
At one point, she believed GMAT wasn’t for her. After scoring 595, self-doubt crept in and she questioned her potential. But instead of quitting, she made the right strategic changes. The result? A remarkable comeback to 695. Check out how Saakshi did it.
Apr 2308:00 PM PDT
-09:00 PM PDT
Video explanations + diagnosis of 10 weakest areas + 150+ short videos + study plan!
Apr 2610:00 AM EDT
-11:00 AM EDT
The Target Test Prep course represents a quantum leap forward in GMAT preparation, a radical reinterpretation of the way that students should study. Try before you buy with a 5-day, full-access trial of the course for FREE!
Apr 2711:00 AM EDT
-12:00 PM EDT
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors
Apr 2808:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Whether you are just beginning your MBA journey or fine-tuning your path to a 700+ score, GMAT Day is designed to give you a competitive edge.
22 Jul 2023, 22:24
Kudos
Bookmarks
D
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
95%
(hard)
Question Stats:
37% (02:12) correct
63%
(02:47)
wrong
based on 275
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
The arousal of anger is sometimes a legitimate artistic aim, and every legitimate artwork that has this aim calls intentionally for concrete intervention in the world. Even granting that most art is concerned with beauty in some way, it follows that those critics who maintain that a concern for beauty is a characteristic of all legitimate art are mistaken.
The conclusion of the argument follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?
A) There are works that are concerned with beauty but that are not legitimate works of art.
B) Only those works that are exclusively concerned with beauty are legitimate works of art.
C) Works of art that call for intervention have a merely secondary concern with beauty.
D) No works of art that call for intervention are concerned with beauty.
E) Only works that call for intervention are legitimate works of art.
The conclusion of the argument follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?
A) There are works that are concerned with beauty but that are not legitimate works of art.
B) Only those works that are exclusively concerned with beauty are legitimate works of art.
C) Works of art that call for intervention have a merely secondary concern with beauty.
D) No works of art that call for intervention are concerned with beauty.
E) Only works that call for intervention are legitimate works of art.
07 Aug 2023, 12:42
Kudos
Bookmarks
I'll give it a shot:
The prompt says that All legitimate work of art that has arousal of anger in it calls for intervention.
The key to answering the question is to understand what this statement means. Its a classic if-then clause.. If its legitimate work of art that has anger, the art calls for intervention. This is sufficient condition. Also, we can conclude that if the art does not call for an intervention, it is not a legitimate work of art involving anger. Note that the author has mentioned that anger is sometimes a legitimate work of art.
From here the author goes on to saying that critics who consider beauty a characteristic for all legitimate work of art are mistaken. Essentially, the critics are saying that it is necessary for a legitimate art to contain beauty. --> anything that does not contain beauty is not a legitimate work of art.
Hence, there is a logical gap in the reasoning. The two statements seem to contradict. Hence, we need to reconcile legitimate work of art with beauty and anger. Note that author does agree that most artwork has element of beauty in it.
Going to answer choices:
(A) So what? How does this address conclusion that critics are mistaken? This is twisting the necessary condition. The author nowhere states that beauty is sufficient to consider it a legitimate work of art. This does not address the conclusion.
(B) This infact strengthens critics' reasoning and weakens the conclusion, rendering author's premise useless. Additionally, use of work "exclusively" is too far and becomes out of scope of the passage. Whichever way you see it, this statement is wrong.
(C) This is again mixing key words and presenting with a trap answer choice. This is actually irrelevant. Everything that calls for an intervention may not be a legitimate work of art. Looking from a different perspective, if it is a legitimate work of art, it still has some element of beauty. Note that its just mentioned that beauty is considered a characteristic. Not matter how irrelevant, critics can still argue that they are right. This is just so wrong at so many level. Would like to see how others are looking at this choice and eliminating it.
(D) Right! Author has to assume that these works of art are not concerned with beauty. Hence the critics can be mistaken. On the other side, if there was some element of beauty, critics would be right and hence our conclusion would not hold true.
(E) Wrong. This is reversal of causal relationship.
Negation technique has caused me more harm in tough questions that contain multiple clauses. If someone has a bulletproof way to negation technique please help!
The prompt says that All legitimate work of art that has arousal of anger in it calls for intervention.
The key to answering the question is to understand what this statement means. Its a classic if-then clause.. If its legitimate work of art that has anger, the art calls for intervention. This is sufficient condition. Also, we can conclude that if the art does not call for an intervention, it is not a legitimate work of art involving anger. Note that the author has mentioned that anger is sometimes a legitimate work of art.
From here the author goes on to saying that critics who consider beauty a characteristic for all legitimate work of art are mistaken. Essentially, the critics are saying that it is necessary for a legitimate art to contain beauty. --> anything that does not contain beauty is not a legitimate work of art.
Hence, there is a logical gap in the reasoning. The two statements seem to contradict. Hence, we need to reconcile legitimate work of art with beauty and anger. Note that author does agree that most artwork has element of beauty in it.
Going to answer choices:
(A) So what? How does this address conclusion that critics are mistaken? This is twisting the necessary condition. The author nowhere states that beauty is sufficient to consider it a legitimate work of art. This does not address the conclusion.
(B) This infact strengthens critics' reasoning and weakens the conclusion, rendering author's premise useless. Additionally, use of work "exclusively" is too far and becomes out of scope of the passage. Whichever way you see it, this statement is wrong.
(C) This is again mixing key words and presenting with a trap answer choice. This is actually irrelevant. Everything that calls for an intervention may not be a legitimate work of art. Looking from a different perspective, if it is a legitimate work of art, it still has some element of beauty. Note that its just mentioned that beauty is considered a characteristic. Not matter how irrelevant, critics can still argue that they are right. This is just so wrong at so many level. Would like to see how others are looking at this choice and eliminating it.
(D) Right! Author has to assume that these works of art are not concerned with beauty. Hence the critics can be mistaken. On the other side, if there was some element of beauty, critics would be right and hence our conclusion would not hold true.
(E) Wrong. This is reversal of causal relationship.
Negation technique has caused me more harm in tough questions that contain multiple clauses. If someone has a bulletproof way to negation technique please help!
08 Aug 2024, 21:23
Kudos
Bookmarks
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.
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.
