PT 49, S4, Q16 Forum

[*Ari*]

Can someone break this question down for me please? I am getting extremely confused within the logic. I still don't understand how the assumption of the argument is that the most beautiful artworks are the best artworks.

"There is a difference between beauty and truth. After all, if there were no difference, then the most realistic pieces of art would be the best as well, since the most realistic pieces are the most truthful.But many of the most realistic artworks are not among the best.)

Thanks!!

[99.9luft]

I'll take a stab at it:


Premise 1 (scenario of no difference between beauty and truth or A=B, respectively): if the most realistic pieces are the most truthful, then the most realistic would be the best (logically: given that A=B then if C-->B would be the same thing as C-->D. What is missing? the connection between B and D - we don't know how they relate to each other at all! that is the necassary assumption: B-->D)

Premise 2: some most realistic aren't the best (C-->D)

Conclusion: Therefore, there is a difference between beauty and truth (A does not equal B)

(A) is the right answer because we need to somehow connect "beauty" and "best" (or to fill in the assumption, the gap that makes the argument work). We can check this by negating it and seeing if it ruins the argument - 'the most beautiful artworks are NOT the best artworks" - and this breaks the "beauty-best" bridge, so to speak (says that B-->D) and makes the argument crumble.

Now, i did not diagram this question because i rarely diagram necessary assumption questions, and instead, try to find the assumption visually (that's why my explanation is not written in terms of formal logical expressions. Someone else can perhaps do that in their version of this explanation)

HTH!

[vamos]

Thanks for the attempt, but I'm still having trouble with this question.

All I know is that the correct answer contains the word "beauty/beautiful", but 3 answer choices do so as well.

P1/ Sub-C: Most Realistic = Most Truthful / Beauty = Truth --> Most Realistic = Best

P2: Most Realistic =l= Most Truthful

C: B =l= T

Correct Answer: The Most Beautiful = Best
-What gap is this answer filling in the argument, I don't see it?

[99.9luft]

Here is a better one: http://www.manhattanlsat.com/forums/pt- ... 891256b793

[vamos]

Here is a better one: http://www.manhattanlsat.com/forums/pt- ... 891256b793

Unfortunately, that didn't help either . I've spent too much time on this question, I guess I'll just move on for now.

[tomwatts]

Put it this way: There is a mini-arg within this arg. It claims that if beauty and truth were the same, you could say:

most realistic -> best

It then says that that is unacceptable, so beauty and truth must be different. That would be fine if saying that beauty and truth were the same thing did in fact imply that "most realistic -> best," but it doesn't, and the key is figuring out why saying that beauty and truth are the same thing doesn't necessarily imply "most realistic -> best." So let's look at that.

The arg seems to be suggesting that the line of reasoning would be:

most realistic -> most truthful -> most beautiful -> best

That is, there are three different connections here: "most realistic -> most truthful," "most truthful -> most beautiful," and "most beautiful -> best." Now, how legitimate is this?

It's said "most realistic -> most truthful" in the final part of the second sentence. And if there were no difference between beauty and truth, "most truthful -> most beautiful" wouldn't be a problem. But the thing is, where the heck did "most beautiful -> best" come from? It just made that up!

Thus, the one missing piece in this otherwise valid argument is "most beautiful -> best."

[vamos]

Wow thanks! That's a great explanation.

[*Ari*]

Put it this way: There is a mini-arg within this arg. It claims that if beauty and truth were the same, you could say:

most realistic -> best

It then says that that is unacceptable, so beauty and truth must be different. That would be fine if saying that beauty and truth were the same thing did in fact imply that "most realistic -> best," but it doesn't, and the key is figuring out why saying that beauty and truth are the same thing doesn't necessarily imply "most realistic -> best." So let's look at that.

The arg seems to be suggesting that the line of reasoning would be:

most realistic -> most truthful -> most beautiful -> best

That is, there are three different connections here: "most realistic -> most truthful," "most truthful -> most beautiful," and "most beautiful -> best." Now, how legitimate is this?

It's said "most realistic -> most truthful" in the final part of the second sentence. And if there were no difference between beauty and truth, "most truthful -> most beautiful" wouldn't be a problem. But the thing is, where the heck did "most beautiful -> best" come from? It just made that up!

Thus, the one missing piece in this otherwise valid argument is "most beautiful -> best."

This seems to help, but I am missing one point. Wherein does the connection in the line of reasoning most beautiful -> best come from? Is that just the answer choice plugged into the logic chain because it 'fits'?

[vamos]

Here is my diagram:

P1/ Sub-Conclusion: (MR --> MT), so [(Bty=T) --> (MR --> Bst)]

Since (Bty=T), lets swap "T" for "Bty" in (MR --> MT), thus giving us (MR --> MBty). So, the question now becomes: "How does (MR --> MBty) link to (MR --> Bst)?". Easy, just link (MBty --> Bst), and now everything logically follows: (MR --> MBty --> Bst).

P2 and the Main Conclusion are unnecessary.

[tomwatts]

This seems to help, but I am missing one point. Wherein does the connection in the line of reasoning most beautiful -> best come from? Is that just the answer choice plugged into the logic chain because it 'fits'?

Not exactly, no. The argument is saying "most realistic -> best," but it has only supplied "most realistic -> most truthful" and "most truthful -> most beautiful." Well, why the heck do they think that makes sense in the first place? "Most beautiful" most mean something to them that they're not mentioning. Presumably it has something to do with "best," because that's the conclusion (of the mini-arg, anyway). And if you add "most beautiful -> best" to what we've got, suddenly it works.

Thus, even before you get to the answer choices, you can know that this will be the answer.

[*Ari*]

This seems to help, but I am missing one point. Wherein does the connection in the line of reasoning most beautiful -> best come from? Is that just the answer choice plugged into the logic chain because it 'fits'?

Not exactly, no. The argument is saying "most realistic -> best," but it has only supplied "most realistic -> most truthful" and "most truthful -> most beautiful." Well, why the heck do they think that makes sense in the first place? "Most beautiful" most mean something to them that they're not mentioning. Presumably it has something to do with "best," because that's the conclusion (of the mini-arg, anyway). And if you add "most beautiful -> best" to what we've got, suddenly it works.

Thus, even before you get to the answer choices, you can know that this will be the answer.

Where does the most truthful -> most beautiful come from? This makes sense for the linking, but I just can't seem to find the most truthful -> most beautiful connection. Also what exactly is the mini argument statement?

Please correct me if I am wrong in my breakdown.

There is a difference between beauty and truth.
After all, if there were no difference (Most Beautiful -> Most Truthful???), then the most realistic
pieces of art would be the best as well (Most Realistic -> Best), since the most
realistic pieces are the most truthful (Most Realistic -> Most Truthful). But many of the
most realistic artworks are not among the best.

Most Realistic -> Most Truthful -> Best

Thanks for all the help,
Ari