by: EnergyAlpha
29 mins
by: Theeldertwin
38 mins
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.
Sep 1507:00 PM EDT
-09:00 PM EST
Elite scores are possible when you enroll in a powerful GMAT course, taught live online + 6 months access to TTP OnDemand video courses included! Class starts Tues/Thurs Sept. 15, 2026 - Nov. 15, 2027, 7:00pm-9:00pm EST
Sep 2107:00 PM EDT
-10:00 PM EDT
Boost your GMAT score in less than one month in a live online class + 6 months access to TTP OnDemand video courses included! Class starts Mon, Tues, Wed, Thur, Fri Sept. 21, 2026 - Oct. 9, 2027, 7:00pm-10:00pm EST
Posts: 16
Updated on: 30 Aug 2017, 04:35
Originally posted by GMATFIGHTER on 12 Mar 2010, 21:05.
Last edited by BillyZ on 30 Aug 2017, 04:35, edited 2 times in total.
Last edited by BillyZ on 30 Aug 2017, 04:35, edited 2 times in total.
Edited topic name
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:
49% (02:16) correct
51%
(02:25)
wrong
based on 1764
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
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 or sculpture, fails to explain some aesthetic feature of music.
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
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
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?
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?
Posts: 1
sidhu4u
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 .
TheBlessedOne
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.
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.
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.
I think the answer is D.
Used the same logic as Exellon's.
Used the same logic as Exellon's.
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
amma4u
Except c) generealizes further to "any theory of art" and not just "every pre-modern general theory of art".
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!
I am huge animal person...had to say it
I had to read the question with d) several times to understand...keeping you response in mind
BTW nice profile pic!
I am huge animal person...had to say it Posts: 16
well done guys. You guys are really good....loool.....the OA is D
Posts: 16
Exellon
"music isn't an art"? or should it be "music is an art"? please explain because I'm lost here.
thanks!
GMATFIGHTER
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.
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...
Posted from GMAT ToolKit
Please help...
Posted from GMAT ToolKit
riyazgilani
Joined: 14 May 2014
Last visit: 13 Jun 2016
Posts: 36
Schools: Broad '18 (WA$)
GMAT 1: 700 Q44 V41
GPA: 3.11
Products:
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..?
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..?
Posts: 997
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.)
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.)
Posts: 1
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!
(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!
Took me 2:52 and answered correctly. is that too slow?
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!
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
Expert
GMAT Tutor
Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Last visit: 10 Sep 2026
Posts: 4,146
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V47
Expert reply
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V47
Posts: 4,146
varotkorn
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)".
_________________
now teaching gmat focus
ianstewartgmat.com
ianstewartgmat.com
IanStewart
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!
Moderators:
Announcements
How to Tell If Your GMAT Prep Resources Are Actually Helping You
Subscribe to GMAT Club for New Podcast Episodes, Debriefs, & Insightful Sessions on GMAT Preparation
Subscribe to GMAT Club for New Podcast Episodes, Debriefs, & Insightful Sessions on GMAT Preparation
Tuck at Dartmouth
AI at Dartmouth Tuck: How the School Is Preparing Leaders for the Age of Artificial Intelligence
Inside the courses, research, and hands-on learning defining wise, decisive leadership in an AI-driven world.
Read More
Inside the courses, research, and hands-on learning defining wise, decisive leadership in an AI-driven world.
Read More
Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos
Success stories and strategies from high-scoring candidates.