Art Historian: Robbins cannot pass judgment on Stuarts art. While

Question

Art Historian: Robbins cannot pass judgment on Stuart’s art. While Robbins understands the art of Stuart too well to dismiss it, she does not understand it well enough to praise it.

The art historian’s argument depends on the assumption that

(A) in order to pass judgment on Stuart’s art, Robbins must be able either to dismiss it or to praise it

(B) if art can be understood well, it should be either dismissed or praised

(C) in order to understand Stuart’s art, Robbins must be able to pass judgment on it

(D) Stuart’s art can be neither praised nor dismissed

(E) if Robbins understands art well, she will praise it

Neha2404 · Answer

IMO-A

Premise: Robbins cannot dismiss Stuart's art (she understands it too well to do dismiss)
Premise: Robbins cannot praise Stuart's art (she doesn't understand it well enough)
Conclusion: Robbins cannot pass judgment on Stuart's art.
Only Option A address the Missing link between both premises and Conclusion

Option A:-
A) in order to pass judgment on Stuart’s art, Robbins must be able either to dismiss it or to praise
 pass judgment on Stuart’s art----Robbins must be able either to dismiss it or to praise

Michael909 · Answer

The argument presented hinges on the idea that Robbins is in a unique position regarding Stuart's art—she understands it too well to simply dismiss it, yet not well enough to openly praise it.  This argument implies a standard or threshold of understanding required to form a certain type of judgment (in this case, praise) about art.  Let's analyze the assumptions within the choices given:

-  (A) in order to pass judgment on Stuart’s art, Robbins must be able either to dismiss it or to praise it. 
     - This choice directly aligns with the structure of the argument. It suggests that passing judgment encompasses two primary forms: dismissal or praise. Given the context, this option implies that there's a certain level of understanding required to engage in either action effectively.

-  (B) if art can be understood well, it should be either dismissed or praised. 
    - This option introduces an obligation ("should") based on the level of understanding, which is not directly implied by the original argument. The art historian doesn't argue about what should happen upon understanding art; they focus on Robbins's current level of understanding and its implications.

-  (C) in order to understand Stuart’s art, Robbins must be able to pass judgment on it. 
    - This reverses the relationship presented in the argument. The art historian's statement is premised on the understanding of the art influencing the ability to judge it, not the other way around.

-  (D) Stuart’s art can be neither praised nor dismissed. 
    - This choice misrepresents the argument. The art historian's point isn't about the inherent qualities of Stuart’s art but about Robbins’s level of understanding and how it affects her ability to judge the art.

-  (E) if Robbins understands art well, she will praise it. 
    - This assumes a direct correlation between understanding and praise, which oversimplifies the argument. The historian’s point is that a certain level of understanding is needed for praise, but Robbins's current level of understanding does not automatically lead to praise.

The missing assumption is most accurately reflected in (A) . This choice captures the essence of the argument: for Robbins to pass judgment on Stuart’s art, she needs a level of understanding that allows her to either dismiss it or praise it. The art historian assumes a binary condition for passing judgment that Robbins does not meet according to their assessment.

pal26 · Answer

I am unable to figure out why A because-
- If in order to pass a judgement, Robbins must either praise or Dismiss the argument. Then since Robbins has the ability to dismiss the argument based on her understanding, there exists a possibility when Robbins will be able to pass a judgement (when she understands it too well to dismiss). 
Hence, it is contradicting the first line.

avigoesforMBA · Answer

Let's say this -

Argument: Robbin has enough clothes to go to a movie theatre but not to a party. Hence, Robin cannot go out?

What comes to your mind after reading this argument. Something like - Isn't this flawed? Robbin can go out to a cafe, to an art museum etc. Going out doesn't comprise of just a movie or a party, why is the author assuming so?

That's it

Robbins has enough understanding (clothes) to dismiss (movie) but not to praise (party).

What if she can pass a judgment without praising it? As you said, there exists a possibility for her to a pass a judgement and thats exactly what the author isn't considering!

He assumes that to pass a judgment, she should have enough to praise as well as dismiss. Which ofc isn't true and hence its negation will break the argument.

Hope it's clear. Feel free to ask any questions

mrinmoy338

I am unable to figure out why A because-
- If in order to pass a judgement, Robbins must either praise or Dismiss the argument. Then since Robbins has the ability to dismiss the argument based on her understanding, there exists a possibility when Robbins will be able to pass a judgement (when she understands it too well to dismiss).
Hence, it is contradicting the first line.

Vibhatu · Answer

Bunuel  please help, I dont understand this. Thanks in advance!!

Art Historian: Robbins cannot pass judgment on Stuarts art. While

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

Art Historian: Robbins cannot pass judgment on Stuarts art. While

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