Quote:
We commonly speak of aesthetic judgments as subjective, and in the short term they are, since critics often disagree about the value of a particular contemporary work of art. But over time, the subjective element disappears. When works of art have continued to delight audiences for centuries, as have the paintings of Michelangelo, the music of Bach, and the plays of Shakespeare, we can objectively call them great.
The statements above best support which of the following conclusions?
(A) When Michelangelo, Bach, and Shakespeare were alive, critics disagreed about the value of their work.
(B) The value of a contemporary work of art cannot be objectively measured.
(C) The reputation of a work of art often fluctuates greatly from one generation to the next.
(D) The mere fact that a work of art has endured for centuries does not establish its greatness.
(E) If critics agree about the value of a particular contemporary work of art, then the work can objectively be called great.
As a solver, the very first step is to understand what the examiner wants out of you. The examiner actually wants you to choose an answer option that is best supported by the given statements. Clearly, you are dealing with a conclusion question. Now that you have understood what the examiner's want is, you shall read and understand the statements. Let me list out the facts one by one. I shall also simultaneously draw inferences.
FACT #1 - In short term, aesthetic judgements are subjective.
Inference: They may not be subjective in the long term.FACT #2: These judgments are subjective because critics often disagree about the value of a particular contemporary work of art.
FACT #3: Over time, the subjective element disappears.
FACT #4: If works of art have continued to delight audiences for centuries, we can objectively call them great. (
Note that the names of the artists are given as examples.) Inference: There must be a link between objectively calling a work of art great and the time it has continued to delight the audiences.Since this is a conclusion question, it must 100 percent be validated by the facts and inferences drawn. Now, you shall eliminate the incorrect answer options - options that are not within the scope of the para or those that are way too extreme.
(A) When Michelangelo, Bach, and Shakespeare were alive, critics disagreed about the value of their work. -
TOO EXTREME -The para says that critics often disagree about a contemporary work of art but does not deal with the stated artists being alive or dead -
ELIMINATE(B) The value of a contemporary work of art cannot be objectively measured. -
MATCHES WITH FACT #1 & FACT #4 AND THE DRAWN INFERENCES -
The value of a contemporary work of art can be subjectively measured and there is a link between objectiveness and the period of time that a work of art has continued to delight its audiences, meaning the value of any contemporary work of art cannot be objectively measured -
KEEP(C) The reputation of a work of art often fluctuates greatly from one generation to the next. -
OUT OF SCOPE - None of the facts deal with the reputation of any work of art - ELIMINATE(D) The mere fact that a work of art has endured for centuries does not establish its greatness. -
TOO EXTREME- The author specifically links delighting audiences for centuries with objectively calling a piece of art great; therefore, it is too extreme and wrong based on the stated facts to arrive at the conclusion that just because a work of art has endured (what about delighting the audiences, by the way?) for centuries does not mean it is great - ELIMINATE(E) If critics agree about the value of a particular contemporary work of art, then the work can objectively be called great. -
OUT OF SCOPE/CONTRADICTS THE FACTS - Goes against FACT#1 & FACT #4 - ELIMINATE
Hence, B is the right answer.