If I am understanding you correctly, you are imagining a hypothetical answer choice that said the following:
(F) Only artworks that succeed in expressing deep emotions are the products of great artworks.
Is this how you imagine the rephrasing? If so, I am confused about how one artwork could ever be considered the product of another piece of great art. You would need to rephrase this answer choice even further to make grammatical sense.
I think your point is that you misread this answer choice to say something along the lines of "all great artworks succeed in expressing a deep emotion."
That would be correct, but you are unlikely to see an answer choice merely restate the exact same relationship as given by the stimulus in a Must Be True question. Instead you will be expected to work with the information given in some way - combining, negating, etc... - to yield an inference that was not directly given.
#10 - To be great, an artwork must express a deep emotion
My thought process was exactly the same as UHinberg's. I still don't think the flaw in (A) involves "great artwork". As UHinberg pointed out, the second sentence in the stimulus extends to any artwork, so I don't see any problem with (A) focusing on "an artwork".
Could you further explain it for me? Thanks a lot!
Thanks for the question! I think a key distinction here is the difference between "capable of experiencing" as stated in the stimulus and "has actually experienced" as stated in answer choice (A). Specifically, we can infer that great artwork can only be made by those who are capable of experiencing the same emotion portrayed by the artwork, but we cannot say that the creator must have experienced this emotion, as answer choice (A) indicates. This distinction is enough to make (A) incorrect.
Hope that helps!
Thanks a lot! That's exactly why I ruled out (A). I just wanted to make sure my thinking process was correct.
Good afternoon powerscore,
My original question was somewhat answered on a prior post/reply on this question in 2015. But I just want to clarify to know whether or not I am on the right track. I miss diagrammed the problem, but still got the right answer choice.
In the second sentence it starts with “but”. Is this considered a counter premise indicator? For that reason, it is introducing the “necessary condition” and is negated when diagrammed?
Also, there are multiple conditions how are they diagrammed in a chain? The explanation given states, “combining the first statement with the contrapositive of the second”. Do you chain the conditions with first statement then connect it with the second statement’s contrapositive?
Thank you for your time.
"But" does not indicate a counterpremise in this stimulus because this stimulus does not contain an argument. Here, the word "but" has a merely rhetorical use, not a logical one - the second sentence, and indeed the entire stimulus, would have had the same structure if the second sentence lacked the word "but".
The conditionals are as follows:
great artwork expresses deep emotion
artwork's creator can experience emotion artwork expresses that emotion
So the "but" had no logical meaning but was just indicating that a thing required for great artwork is something excluded by something else (excluded when the creator can't experience it).
I can combine those conditionals by saying something like "If an artwork is great, it must express a deep emotion, which must be something the creator can experience." So:
great artwork expresses deep emotion artwork's creator is capable of experiencing that same deep emotion
So for an artwork to be great, its creator must be able to experience at least one deep emotion.
Answer choice (D) exploits the contrapositive of this statement.