33.LR1.10 Forum

[appind]

This stim says that great works of art have often caused shock e.g. works of Stravinsky and Manet.
therefore, since art of often shocking, we should use public funds to support shocking art.

the question asks for a necessary assumption. it seems that a necessary assumption could be "public funds should support shocking art."

but the credited choice D is: public funds should support art.
it seems that public funds should support all art is not required and only support for shocking art is required. any solid reason why D overlooks this distinction?

[redfred22]

This stim says that great works of art have often caused shock e.g. works of Stravinsky and Manet.
therefore, since art of often shocking, we should use public funds to support shocking art.

the question asks for a necessary assumption. it seems that a necessary assumption could be "public funds should support shocking art."

but the credited choice D is: public funds should support art.
it seems that public funds should support all art is not required and only support for shocking art is required. any solid reason why D overlooks this distinction?

I think one of the issues here is that maybe what you're seeing as the conclusion isn't exactly the conclusion. The conclusion isn't that we should use public funds, it's that we should not HESITATE to use public funds to support shocking art. Why? Art is often shocking. The author is basically assuming that we should just support art! Answer D says this.

Here is how it would go in the real world. John controls public fund support for art. However, he is a little hesitant to spend a lot of public funds on art that might be shocking (what exactly shocking means is up for interpretation, but let's just say it's something like sex depictions, gore, etc.) Then Mary comes along and says, "Hey, don't hesitate to use those funds for art... art is OFTEN shocking... it's like its the norm... art is supposed to be shocking. Supporting shocking art with those funds is okay because it's a normal thing."

We could think of a world where art is often shocking, but that maybe we SHOULD hesitate to use shocking art. What if art is often shocking, but that we need the public funds for other things, or that public funds just shouldn't be used for art period. The fact that art is often shocking isn't enough to get us to that conclusion. So, we would have to be assuming that public funds should support art!

Your concern is a valid one. If the argument was: we should use public funds to support shocking art because art is often shocking, then the answer would be a little above and beyond what we needed. We wouldn't need all art to be supported by public funds. We would just need great art or shocking art to be supported by public funds. But remember, the conclusion is that we should not HESITATE to use the funds, not that we should use them. "Don't hesitate" does not equal "We should do this." "Don't hesitate to punch him in the face" does not equal "You should punch him in the face."

[appind]

The conclusion isn't that we should use public funds, it's that we should not HESITATE to use public funds to support shocking art.

The fact that art is often shocking isn't enough to get us to that conclusion. So, we would have to be assuming that public funds should support art!

even with conclusion being about one shouldn't hesitate, it seems we only need to be assuming "public funds should support shocking art". i am not sure how conclusion being about hesitation makes a difference whether the necessary assumption is about only shocking art or all art.

[redfred22]

The conclusion isn't that we should use public funds, it's that we should not HESITATE to use public funds to support shocking art.

The fact that art is often shocking isn't enough to get us to that conclusion. So, we would have to be assuming that public funds should support art!

even with conclusion being about one shouldn't hesitate, it seems we only need to be assuming "public funds should support shocking art". i am not sure how conclusion being about hesitation makes a difference whether the necessary assumption is about only shocking art or all art.

There is a difference.

So here is how the stimulus goes: Someone is hesitant to use public funds to support shocking art. The author is saying, "Listen, I know that you're hesitant to use public funds for shocking art, and that makes sense, but you actually shouldn't be hesitant to use public funds. Why? Because art is OFTEN shocking - it's almost like the norm. It's almost as if the objective is to make art shocking."

So the author is saying that this person shouldn't hesitate to use the public funds on shocking art on the grounds that shocking art is considered the objective or norm of art. But just because it's the objective or norm doesn't mean that we shouldn't hesitate to support it. What if, in this world that these two people are talking about, public funds shouldn't be used on anything except things that all citizens will get use out of? Or what if, in this world, public funds should be used only on necessities? The reason that the author uses, that art is often shocking, is not enough to guarantee that we shouldn't hesitate. It's as if the author is assuming that the only reason the other person, or anyone in general, would hesitate to use public funds on shocking art is that it's shocking. Maybe they would hesitate to use those funds because art is shocking but maybe they will also hesitate to use them for other reasons.

The correct answer gets at this. The author and his/her argument is already assuming outright that public funds should be used for art. Again, what if there are reasons why we SHOULDN'T support art besides just this shocking aspect?

[appind]

this is a circuitous reasoning, the reasons we shouldn't support art besides just shocking aspect is not relevant as the question is asking for a necessary assumption. you seem to showing the reasons how answer choice helps justify the conclusion. the conclusion is only about shocking art, so necessary assumption doesn't have to include all art.

premise: art of often shocking,
conclusion: we shouldn't hesitate to use public funds to support shocking art.

like the op says, public funds should be used to support all art doesn't seem required. only that public funds should be used to support shocking art is required.

[somethingElse]

Post removed...

[appind]

take the negation of TCR: We shouldn't support art with public funds. If that is true, and we shouldn't support any art at all with public funds, then you can deduce that we also shouldn't support shocking art, since shocking art is a subset of art in general. That's why its still a necessary assumption for this argument to work.

the negation of tcr is not ""We shouldn't support art with public funds"

negation of D is: Sometimes public funds should not support art (it is same as saying: "Public funds should not support some art.")

when D is negated, one could have public funds not support only non-shocking art, and still have the argument intact and work. as the argument only needs public funds to support only shocking art.

[somethingElse]

Post removed...

[redfred22]

this is a circuitous reasoning, the reasons we shouldn't support art besides just shocking aspect is not relevant as the question is asking for a necessary assumption. you seem to showing the reasons how answer choice helps justify the conclusion. the conclusion is only about shocking art, so necessary assumption doesn't have to include all art.

premise: art of often shocking,
conclusion: we shouldn't hesitate to use public funds to support shocking art.

like the op says, public funds should be used to support all art doesn't seem required. only that public funds should be used to support shocking art is required.

Those reasons we shouldn't support art besides shocking aspect are relevant, though. It's like saying:

We should go to the store. Why? Because we are out of milk. Other reasons why we shouldn't go to the store are very relevant to this because we are trying to show that being out of milk is not itself enough reason to go to the store. Maybe there is a hurricane or tornado outside. Maybe the store it out of milk too. Just saying we are out of milk isn't enough to say we should go to the store. If you consider other potential factors or weak points, maybe we actually SHOULDN'T go to the store.

If my concern is that shocking art may be, for some reason, a bad thing, and you're telling me we shouldn't be hesitant to support art with public funds because art is often shocking, then that's leaving out a big piece of the puzzle. Sure, art may often be shocking but that doesn't mean we shouldn't hesitate to support it. Even though my main issue may be with the shocking aspect of art, that doesn't mean that that's the only potential factor or issue. It's not enough to guarantee that, which is why I came up with those other reasons.

And that is what the argument is leaving out. Sure, art is often shocking -- doesn't mean we should support art. Therefore we are assuming that public funds should be used to support art. Not just shocking, but art.

Another example:

We should not be hesitant to call the police on our cell phones if we see someone commit a crime because people often call the police in that situation.

See the issue with that argument? There are many reasons why maybe we should be hesitant to call the police despite the fact that people often do it. Just because something is often the case does not mean we shouldn't be hesitant. A necessary assumption of that argument is that people should use their cell phone to call people.

Also, I think you are messing up with your negation a little. you said,

but the assumption negation doesn't destroy the argument. The negation of D is not ""Public funds should not support art."
Negation of D is: Sometimes public funds should not support art (it is same as saying: "Public funds should not support some art.")

The negation is: Public funds should not always support art. Your first negation is correct: Sometimes public funds should not support art. But that is not the same as saying that "Public funds should not support SOME ART." The focus is on the public funds and its act of SUPPORTING art. The focus is not on the art itself. So you can't say that "sometimes public funds should not support art" is the same as "public funds should not support some art." Those are two totally different meanings. In the first one, you are sometime supporting and sometimes not supporting all art. In the other, you are supporting this type of art this time, and another type of art another time. Totally different.

[redfred22]

Taken exactly how it appears on the question, TCR is: Public funds should support art.

The negation of that is: Public funds should not support art. In other words, and this can work for a lot of answer choices, if you simply put "it is not the case" before the statement, that will give you the statement's negation. For this answer choice, it ends up saying "It is not the case that public funds should support art." That is most definitely not equivalent to saying "Sometimes public funds should not support art." It is stronger than that.

In order for the negation to say "Sometimes public funds should not support art," the answer choice would have to read "Public funds should always support art." But TCR does not have the word "always" in it, and thus is not properly negated in the "Sometimes..." fashion.

Exactly this. You're messing up the negation OP. Emphasis is on the support not the art.

[appind]

when you are arrive at the negation of D to be so that public funds do not support any art ("It is not the case that public funds should support art."), you are implicitly assuming that D refers to "some art" and that the choice D means: Public funds should support (some) art. in that case, your negation would be correct and you're right that in that interpretation choice-D is a perfect necessary assumption. whatever the syntax of the sentence, it's clear that even with your approach the semantics or the meaning that we are looking for in the credited necessary assumption is that it needs to cover only shocking art and not all art.
the way i read D is "public funds should support (all) art" as in D art is being referred to in general and there is no clear reason why someone wouldn't read it as such. the negation of this read is: Public funds should not support some art. in that interpretation D is more than a necessary assumption and stops being a necessary assumption.

the issue is that a sentence such as "A should support X" where X is some uncountable generic entity is open to interpretation in that it could mean either A should support all X or A should support some X. imo there is no reason it shouldn't be read as A should support all X. this question is from an old pt and seems to lack the logical compactness of new PTs in that regard.

[somethingElse]

Post removed...

[redfred22]

when you are arrive at the negation of D to be so that public funds do not support any art ("It is not the case that public funds should support art."), you are implicitly assuming that D refers to "some art" and that the choice D means: Public funds should support (some) art. in that case, your negation would be correct and you're right that in that interpretation choice-D is a perfect necessary assumption. whatever the syntax of the sentence, it's clear that even with your approach the semantics or the meaning that we are looking for in the credited necessary assumption is that it needs to cover only shocking art and not all art.
the way i read D is "public funds should support (all) art" as in D art is being referred to in general and there is no clear reason why someone wouldn't read it as such. the negation of this read is: Public funds should not support some art. in that interpretation D is more than a necessary assumption and stops being a necessary assumption.

the issue is that a sentence such as "A should support X" where X is some uncountable generic entity is open to interpretation in that it could mean either A should support all X or A should support some X. imo there is no reason it shouldn't be read as A should support all X. this question is from an old pt and seems to lack the logical compactness of new PTs in that regard.

But the thing is that you are NOT negating the correct way. As I said before, saying that public funds should not always support art is not the same thing as saying public funds should support some art. Those are two totally different things.

All animals are cute. The logical negation of that would be "not all animals are cute." The focus is on the animals, not them being cute. Saying all animals are not cute would of course go wayyyyy too far to be a logical opposite.

For this question, you are not to negate the part about just the ART. You are to negate the part about the SUPPORT OF ART. Negating support. Not art. The logical opposite of "public funds should be used to support art" is "it is not the case that public funds should be used to support art." "Should be used" is our action. We have to logically negate that. You are getting totally mixed up on this question in regards to what you have to negate. If this question were focused on that art by itself, you'd likely be on track, but the conclusion isn't about "art" by itself, it's about the use of public funds and whether or not it should be used to support art.

Edit: and to add, if the answer was, "All art should be supported by public funds" then you would negate and say that "not all art should be supported..." Do you see how the action and, subject, etc are different?

[appind]

that "A should support X" can't mean A should support all X is i will have to disagree with. there are examples where it's clear to think that X would refer to all X.

"art requires creativity. this painting is art. therefore this painting requires creativity".

"society should support schools. schools are of two kinds, government schools and private school. so society should support this school that is a government school"

"icecreams use sugar. so the icecream John ate today used sugar"

in these examples it's clear that the first sentence is referring to all. in any case imo you'd not see such a question in recent pts that are more logically tight and less interpretive than this question.

[somethingElse]

Post removed...

[appind]

the first and third examples are not what you presented them to be as you applied all on the wrong nouns than intended, which were art and icecream, in the first and third example in your post. the second example's main sentence is similar to the stim in the question. your claim about second example's invalidity again is interpretation as i said before.
there is not much to gain by discussing this old lr question, hth.

[A. Nony Mouse]

the first and third examples are not what you presented them to be as you applied all on the wrong nouns than intended, which were art and icecream, in the first and third example in your post. the second example's main sentence is similar to the stim in the question. your claim about second example's invalidity again is interpretation as i said before.
there is not much to gain by discussing this old lr question, hth.

Then why did you ask people to discuss it?

[somethingElse]

Post removed...

[appind]

Then why did you ask people to discuss it?

you likely are not taking lsat. if you read the thread, unless Leubke had anything i didn't see there wasn't anything of reason to add to it than what's been already added.

[appind]

no, you are again misusing the examples. the examples for all art and all icecream are to show that all can be implicit in them. what you claim is interpretion as i said before. i have added what i could and will let it stand.