- Wed Sep 02, 2015 5:11 pm
#19622
I put these questions together since they are a page apart on the lr bible and part of the same family of questions. Maybe someone can kill 2 birds in one stone for me here =D
Logical reasoning bible (pg 120 # 6): "Cezanne's art inspired the next generation of artists, twentieth- century modernist creators..."
C) I find this answer very confusing, better than the rest, but still confusing. It would make sense if it said that Cezanna helped develop abstract art, since she inspired the people who went on to later make it. But how could she have helped develop modernism? It just says she inspired "modernist creators of abstract art". What if even though they were modernists themselves, their work had nothing to do with modernism! Do we even know abstract art is part of modernism? I just do not even see how this answer was logically deduced or correct =/ (feeling frustrated).
Logical reasoning bible (pg. 121 #8): "One of the most vexing problems in historiography is dating an event when the usual sources offer conflicting chronologies..."
So the last tibbit of the stimulus goes like "Once this is achieved and several sources are left...which date is more likely to be right". So here is the confusion: The historians narrow down options to a few credible sources, but then they on their own come up with what they think the date is and ignore the sources they just narrowed down? (This is counter intuitive obviously, but that's how I am interpreting what is written). What is the accurate interpretation of this last tibbit?
Thanks in advance!
Logical reasoning bible (pg 120 # 6): "Cezanne's art inspired the next generation of artists, twentieth- century modernist creators..."
C) I find this answer very confusing, better than the rest, but still confusing. It would make sense if it said that Cezanna helped develop abstract art, since she inspired the people who went on to later make it. But how could she have helped develop modernism? It just says she inspired "modernist creators of abstract art". What if even though they were modernists themselves, their work had nothing to do with modernism! Do we even know abstract art is part of modernism? I just do not even see how this answer was logically deduced or correct =/ (feeling frustrated).
Logical reasoning bible (pg. 121 #8): "One of the most vexing problems in historiography is dating an event when the usual sources offer conflicting chronologies..."
So the last tibbit of the stimulus goes like "Once this is achieved and several sources are left...which date is more likely to be right". So here is the confusion: The historians narrow down options to a few credible sources, but then they on their own come up with what they think the date is and ignore the sources they just narrowed down? (This is counter intuitive obviously, but that's how I am interpreting what is written). What is the accurate interpretation of this last tibbit?
Thanks in advance!