June 2007 - S3 Q3 (LR) Forum

[aliceydu]

I only posted the full text of the this problem because it's public on the LSAC website.


I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask, but I don't get this LR question:

June 2007: Section 3 Question 3

CAROLYN: The artist Marc Quinn has displayed, behind a glass plate, biologically replicate fragments of Sir John Sulston's DNA, calling it a "conceptual portrait" of Sulston. But to be a portrait, something must bear a recognizable resemblance to its subject.

ARNOLD: I disagree. Quinn's conceptual portrait is a maximally realistic portrait, for it holds actual instructions according to which Sulston was created.

They disagree over whether the object:
C) bears a recognizable resemblance to Sulston
E) is actually a portrait of Sulston

I chose (C) instead of (E) because Carolyn says if it's a portrait, then there's recognizable resemblance, but since she thinks it's NOT recognizable, she thinks it's NOT a portrait. To me, it sounds like Arnold disagrees with her definition of a portrait. Isn't he disagreeing with both Carolyn's conclusion (E. not portrait) AND her definition (C. no resemblance)? So why is (E) a better choice?

Thanks!

[lrslayer]

I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask, but I don't get this LR question:

June 2007: Section 3 Question 3

CAROLYN: The artist Marc Quinn has displayed, behind a glass plate, biologically replicate fragments of Sir John Sulston's DNA, calling it a "conceptual portrait" of Sulston. But to be a portrait, something must bear a recognizable resemblance to its subject.

ARNOLD: I disagree. Quinn's conceptual portrait is a maximally realistic portrait, for it holds actual instructions according to which Sulston was created.

They disagree over whether the object:
C) bears a recognizable resemblance to Sulston
E) is actually a portrait of Sulston

I chose (C) instead of (E) because Carolyn says if it's a portrait, then there's recognizable resemblance, but since she thinks it's NOT recognizable, she thinks it's NOT a portrait. To me, it sounds like Arnold disagrees with her definition of a portrait. Isn't he disagreeing with both Carolyn's conclusion (E. not portrait) AND her definition (C. no resemblance)? So why is (E) a better choice?
Thanks!

Here's the key:
"But to be a portrait, something must bear a recognizable resemblance to its subject."
vs.
"Quinn's conceptual portrait is a maximally realistic portrait"

This is tricky but they never really hash out if the DNA is recognizable

[Easy-E]

I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask, but I don't get this LR question:

June 2007: Section 3 Question 3

CAROLYN: The artist Marc Quinn has displayed, behind a glass plate, biologically replicate fragments of Sir John Sulston's DNA, calling it a "conceptual portrait" of Sulston. But to be a portrait, something must bear a recognizable resemblance to its subject.

ARNOLD: I disagree. Quinn's conceptual portrait is a maximally realistic portrait, for it holds actual instructions according to which Sulston was created.

They disagree over whether the object:
C) bears a recognizable resemblance to Sulston
E) is actually a portrait of Sulston

I chose (C) instead of (E) because Carolyn says if it's a portrait, then there's recognizable resemblance, but since she thinks it's NOT recognizable, she thinks it's NOT a portrait. To me, it sounds like Arnold disagrees with her definition of a portrait. Isn't he disagreeing with both Carolyn's conclusion (E. not portrait) AND her definition (C. no resemblance)? So why is (E) a better choice?

Thanks!

Just did this test yesterday. I was thrown on this one at first glance, but Arnold never actually says he believes it resembles Sulston, just that its an accurate portrait. So they have two different definitions of what constitutes a portrait, which is the basis of them disagreeing over whether this art is a portrait of Sulston. Hope that helps.

[aliceydu]

I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask, but I don't get this LR question:

June 2007: Section 3 Question 3

CAROLYN: The artist Marc Quinn has displayed, behind a glass plate, biologically replicate fragments of Sir John Sulston's DNA, calling it a "conceptual portrait" of Sulston. But to be a portrait, something must bear a recognizable resemblance to its subject.

ARNOLD: I disagree. Quinn's conceptual portrait is a maximally realistic portrait, for it holds actual instructions according to which Sulston was created.

They disagree over whether the object:
C) bears a recognizable resemblance to Sulston
E) is actually a portrait of Sulston

I chose (C) instead of (E) because Carolyn says if it's a portrait, then there's recognizable resemblance, but since she thinks it's NOT recognizable, she thinks it's NOT a portrait. To me, it sounds like Arnold disagrees with her definition of a portrait. Isn't he disagreeing with both Carolyn's conclusion (E. not portrait) AND her definition (C. no resemblance)? So why is (E) a better choice?
Thanks!

Here's the key:
"But to be a portrait, something must bear a recognizable resemblance to its subject."
vs.
"Quinn's conceptual portrait is a maximally realistic portrait"

This is tricky but they never really hash out if the DNA is recognizable

Hmm, I see what you mean. If I see another one similar to this, should I just go for the "bigger picture"?