#24 - We ought to pay attention only to the intrinsic

[ashpine17]

Trying to approach this question via diagramming/conditional reasoning confused the heck out of me. I just can't see why the last sentence is the main conclusion. Aren't the first and last sentences saying the exact same thing, except phrased a little differently? They are both stating that we ought to only pay attention to the intrinsic (what's directly represented as opposed to extrinsic, or symbolic, aspects of the artwork).

Is there something I'm missing? Help.

[Robert Carroll]

Tajadas,

The conclusion has another part that you missed: that what a painting symbolizes is not aesthetically relevant. If what it symbolized were external, that would make sense.

I think, ultimately, that trying to make the statements in the stimulus into conditionals does not aid understanding and in fact can confuse the issue. A more intuitive understanding seems appropriate: intrinsic properties deserve attention, not extrinsic ones. What's directly presented is what's relevant, not what it symbolizes. "What it symbolizes" is floating in the conclusion without any connection to the premises, so we should connect it.

ashpine17,

Try the non-conditional approach I outlined above! I agree that trying to force a conditional understanding, even if it's technically correct, doesn't do what we want out of a conditional diagram - a better understanding of the stimulus.

The first sentence and the last sentence are not saying the same things - nothing about what an artwork symbolizes is in the first sentence. I don't just mean that the words are not in the sentence, but that nothing in the sentence covers the idea "symbolism" or is translatable to it at all. So we have the last sentence with its conclusion indicator ("therefore") and the other sentences, which the author just claims without trying to prove them. The only statement the author is trying to show is based on others is the last sentence. Thus, the last sentence must be the conclusion.

Robert Carroll