The senator has long held to the general principle that no true work o

Question

The senator has long held to the general principle that no true work of art is obscene, and thus that there is no conflict between the need to encourage free artistic expression and the need to protect the sensibilities of the public from obscenity. When well-known works generally viewed as obscene are cited as possible counterexamples, the senator justifies accepting the principle by saying that if these works really are obscene then they cannot be works of art.

The senator’s reasoning contains which one of the following errors?

(A) It seeks to persuade by emotional rather than intellectual means.

(B) It contains an implicit contradiction.

(C) It relies on an assertion of the senator’s authority.

(D) It assumes what it seeks to establish.

(E) It attempts to justify a position by appeal to an irrelevant consideration.

Source:  Nova GMAT

WiziusCareers1 · Answer

Premise: If art, then not obscene
=> If obscene, then not art
So, the senator is assuming what he needs to establish.

(A) It seeks to persuade by emotional rather than intellectual means.
 There is no emotional statement that the senator makes.

(B) It contains an implicit contradiction.
 The senator is not contradicting what he said. He sticks with what he suggests. 
 
(C) It relies on an assertion of the senator’s authority.
 He is not posing anything because of his authority.

(D) It assumes what it seeks to establish.
 Correct answer.

(E) It attempts to justify a position by appeal to an irrelevant consideration.

nikitathegreat · Answer

GMATNinja  - Can you help to distinguish between option choices B and D?
This looks like a circular argument where the author says that any true work of art cannot be obscene but at the same time when famous well known works are shown as obscene then the author says that these cannot be true works of art. 
Doesnt this look like a contradiction..looks like just to prove a point, he said it cannot be true works of art - just to fit his hypothesis??
 karishma   sajjad

GMATNinja · Answer

A contradiction would be something like this:

"No true work of art is obscene, but THIS obscene work IS art because the artist is so famous and popular."

In this example, both parts (before and after the "but") cannot be true at the same time. If one is true, then the other is false. So this statement is contradictory.

The author says that no true work of art is obscene. Why not? Because anything obscene cannot be a work of art. There's no contradiction there, since both things CAN be true at the same time.

The problem is that the principle and the support for the principle are basically the same thing. The principle only holds if you ASSUME that it is true in the first place.

So (D) is a better fit.

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.

The senator has long held to the general principle that no true work o

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 senator has long held to the general principle that no true work o

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