- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8916
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Fri Apr 29, 2016 11:16 am
#23604
Complete Question Explanation
Strengthen-PR. The correct answer choice is (E)
Shanna argues that owners have the right to destroy art if doing so suits their fancy.
Jorge retorts that ownership, in the case of art, does not give one the right to destroy art. He argues that artwork belongs to posterity, so art must be preserved.
While Jorge's position may be more enticing than Shanna's, the fact is that his argument is no more logically sound than is hers. Jorge's argument involves the principle that certain objects imply a degree of community ownership, while Shanna's involves the principle that ownership is always individual and exclusive. Neither principle is something that is demanded by logic. You are asked to help Shanna, so you should find a choice that favors her position.
Answer choice (A): This response attempts to make Jorge's concerns irrelevant by suggesting that even under Shanna's principle, artwork would not be destroyed. However, the possibility that people would not choose to use the right to destroy artwork does not logically support the idea that they should be allowed the choice. Furthermore, since you have no reason to believe that those who own works of art are serious students of the history of art, this choice should not even fully assuage Jorge's concerns.
Answer choice (B): The idea that the rights of posterity outweigh the rights of a single living individual supports Jorge's argument, not Shanna's.
Answer choice (C): This choice suggests that it might be imprudent to allow people to destroy artwork, which supports Jorge somewhat and attacks Shanna.
Answer choice (D): The principle that there are some things that cannot justifiably be absolutely (exclusively) owned might support Jorge's claims that owners of artwork do not possess full, exclusive ownership rights.
Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer choice. This principle grants that as long as there is no threat to health or safety, individuals must be allowed to do as they please with what they own. Since it is reasonable to think that most artwork could be destroyed without risk to health or safety (obviously the choice does not mean psychological health), this principle is good support for Shanna and a good attack on Jorge.
Strengthen-PR. The correct answer choice is (E)
Shanna argues that owners have the right to destroy art if doing so suits their fancy.
Jorge retorts that ownership, in the case of art, does not give one the right to destroy art. He argues that artwork belongs to posterity, so art must be preserved.
While Jorge's position may be more enticing than Shanna's, the fact is that his argument is no more logically sound than is hers. Jorge's argument involves the principle that certain objects imply a degree of community ownership, while Shanna's involves the principle that ownership is always individual and exclusive. Neither principle is something that is demanded by logic. You are asked to help Shanna, so you should find a choice that favors her position.
Answer choice (A): This response attempts to make Jorge's concerns irrelevant by suggesting that even under Shanna's principle, artwork would not be destroyed. However, the possibility that people would not choose to use the right to destroy artwork does not logically support the idea that they should be allowed the choice. Furthermore, since you have no reason to believe that those who own works of art are serious students of the history of art, this choice should not even fully assuage Jorge's concerns.
Answer choice (B): The idea that the rights of posterity outweigh the rights of a single living individual supports Jorge's argument, not Shanna's.
Answer choice (C): This choice suggests that it might be imprudent to allow people to destroy artwork, which supports Jorge somewhat and attacks Shanna.
Answer choice (D): The principle that there are some things that cannot justifiably be absolutely (exclusively) owned might support Jorge's claims that owners of artwork do not possess full, exclusive ownership rights.
Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer choice. This principle grants that as long as there is no threat to health or safety, individuals must be allowed to do as they please with what they own. Since it is reasonable to think that most artwork could be destroyed without risk to health or safety (obviously the choice does not mean psychological health), this principle is good support for Shanna and a good attack on Jorge.
morally / aesthetically distasteful OR caring for it becomes inconvenient 
