The purpose of a general theory of art is to explain every aesthetic f

Question

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 and sculpture, fails to explain some aesthetic feature of music.

IMO:
c) Any theory of art that focuses primarily on sculpture and painting cannot explain every aesthetic feature of music. - this is the only stmt supports the underlined..IMO

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

sidhu4u · Answer

I think its D.

Basically the stimulus says =>
- General theory of art should explain every aesthetic feature in any of the arts.
- Pre-modern general theories focused primarily on painting and sculpture.
- Even those pre-modern theories that succeed (in being called a general theory of art) fails to explain some aesthetic feature of music.

This would make it seem that no pre modern theory of art fulfills the condition to be a general theory of art unless we exempt music from the category of art.

What is the OA?

TheBlessedOne · Answer

Same as your logic ... but i was hoping for C .

You may be right but to me D appeared to be too strong of a comment, something which is generally not seen on GMAT.

All depends on the source and OA .

sidhu4u · Answer

I excluded C because c)  Any theory of art  that focuses primarily on sculpture and painting cannot explain  every aesthetic feature  of music.
Both are rather strong which like you said is generally not seen on the GMAT.

Exellon · Answer

The answer is D.

The question's logic flows as such:

1) General theory of art -> explains all aspects of art
2) Pre-modern theory of art explains only paint and sculpture

Now the answer D goes on to say that for pre-modern theory of art to fulfill its purpose, it must include music if it's an art. That was a necessary condition in 1). Alas, the question states this in a tricky way by using No pre-modern theory... unless music isn't an art. This can be converted into If pre-modern theory... then music isn't an art.

nsp007 · Answer

I think the answer is D.

Used the same logic as Exellon's.

amma4u · Answer

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 and sculpture, fails to explain some aesthetic feature of music.

IMO:
c) Any theory of art that focuses primarily on sculpture and painting cannot explain every aesthetic feature of music. - this is the only stmt supports the underlined..IMO

IMO:
c) Any theory of art that focuses primarily on sculpture and painting cannot explain every aesthetic feature of music. - this is the only stmt supports the underlined..IMO

Exellon · Answer

Except c) generealizes further to "any theory of art" and not just "every pre-modern general theory of art".

amma4u · Answer

Tx Exellon..yeah I see it now..as you said c) generalizes. I had to read the question with d) several times to understand...keeping you response in mind BTW nice profile pic! :-D

I am huge animal person...had to say it

GMATFIGHTER · Answer

well done guys. You guys are really good....loool.....the OA is D

GMATFIGHTER · Answer

"music isn't an art"? or should it be "music is an art"? please explain because I'm lost here.
thanks!

Exellon · Answer

A unless B can be turned into the typical "If not A then B" and is usually how I do it.

So No pre-modern theory ... unless music isn't an art can can be turned into If no pre-modern theory ... then music isn't an art.

ramiaj · Answer

Guys, I understand why it is D but am failing to rule out B. Is B not also true? If a general theory of art that explains every feature of music then the purpose has been achieved?

Please help...

https://gmatclub.com/static/posted_from.png     Posted from    GMAT ToolKit

riyazgilani · Answer

why not A..?

if a theory is being called "general theory of art, then it must be succeeding at explaining every aesthetic feature of painting as well as sculpture..?

Nevernevergiveup · Answer

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 and sculpture, fails to explain some aesthetic feature of music.

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

a) Any general theory of art that explains the aesthetic features of painting also explains those of sculpture.
 (The purpose of an art is to explain every feature of every art. but as we have an exceptional case of music we can say that not every gen theory of art can fulfill its purpose or explain every feature in nay art. This cannot be true for sure.)

b) A general theory of art that explains every aesthetic feature of music will achieve its purpose.
 (The purpose of general theory of art is to explain every aesthetic feature of any art not only music. Not true.)

c) Any theory of art that focuses primarily on sculpture and painting cannot explain every aesthetic feature of music.
 (This is the case of Pre-modern theories but does not apply for any theory of art. This is the case of extreme inference.)

d) No pre-modern general theory of art achieves its purpose unless music is not art.
 (This means that any Pre-modern theory does not achieve its purpose if music is an art. Just like unless sth is not false means sth is true,Unless music is not art means music is art.)

e) No pre-modern general theory of art explains any aesthetic features of music that are not shared with painting and sculpture.
 (No sharing between music and  painting and sculpture  is mentioned in the argument.
pre-modern general theory of art does not explain some features of music not any or all. Not true based on argument.)

rocker.addy · Answer

The correct answer is (D). 
 (A) is not supported by the statements. We do not have enough information to make this claim about any GTA. Would it be possible, given these statements, for GTA to explain painting but NOT explain sculpture (or vice versa)? Absolutely-the statements say only that pre-modern theories focused "primarily" on painting and sculpture, and that "some" pre-modern theories succeeded for painting and sculpture. Eliminate.

(B) is not supported by the statements. What if the theory explained every feature of music but did not explain every feature of painting and sculpture (or other arts)? Eliminate.

(C) is not supported by the statements. If the word "any" were replaced with "some" we would have our answer, but we do not have enough information to make this claim about "any" GTA. What about non-pre-modern GTA that focused on painting and sculpture? We don't know anything about them, and there's nothing that says they couldn't fully explain music's aesthetic features. Eliminate.

(E) is tempting because it combines many of the words from the passage, throwing in a "no" and a "not" to confuse us more. But look at exactly what this choice says. All we know about music/pre-modern GTA is that pre-modern GTA did not fully explain music-meaning there was at least one feature of music that couldn't be explained by those theories. Does that mean those theories did not explain any parts of music that didn't overlap with painting and sculpture? Absolutely not .

Choice (D) combines what we know about premodern GTA (that they failed to fully explain some aesthetic feature of music) and the purpose of GTA-to explain fully all aesthetic features of the arts. If music is an art, then a premodern GTA cannot fulfill its purpose, so a premodern GTA cannot achieve its purpose unless we exclude music as a category. This is our answer.

If you like my explanation, Please KUDOS. Thanks!

oasis90 · Answer

Took me 2:52 and answered correctly. is that too slow?

kornn · Answer

Dear AjiteshArun VeritasKarishma VeritasPrepBrian MartyTargetTestPrep IanStewart AnthonyRitz GMATNinja , This post demands a lot of thoughts into this. Thank you for your patience in advance!

Q1. (C) Any theory of art that focus primarily on sculpture or painting "cannot explain EVERY aesthetic feature" of music. I'm not sure how to interpret the underlined part. Does choice C. mean: out of 100 features, a theory cannot explain at least 1 of them? (NOT EVERY : e.g. it can explain 99 features, but cannot explain 1 features) Q2. Is the portion in choice C. the same as "cannot explain SOME aesthetic feature" ? Q3. Is the portion in choice C. the same as "fails to explain SOME aesthetic feature" - from the last sentence in the question? (IMO, "cannot explain" = "fails to explain") Q4. If I would like to say - out of 100 features, a theory cannot explain any of them, should it be "cannot explain ANY aesthetic feature" ? (NOT ANY = NONE : e.g. it cannot explain all 100 features) Q5. Q4 version is actually a subset / one of the possibilities of Q1 version right? I am especially confused between Q1. and Q4. versions because technically EVERY has the same meaning as ANY. At first glance, there shouldn't be the difference between Q1. and Q4! As I'm not a native speaker, I have to read this choice more than 3 times!

IanStewart · Answer

The answers to all of your five questions is 'yes'. The word "every" does not mean the same thing as the word "any", though, which is why your sentence in Q1 means something different from your sentence in Q4. Speaking casually, "every" means "all", while "any" means "one (or more)".

kornn · Answer

Dear  IanStewart ,

If "any" means "one (or more)" and  "one (or more)" is equivalent to "some" , then why Q2 ("some") is not the same as Q4 ("any")?

Also, from grammar perspective, I also don't understand why Q1 ("every") is the same as Q2("some")

Thank you for your help Sir!

The purpose of a general theory of art is to explain every aesthetic f

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

The purpose of a general theory of art is to explain every aesthetic f

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