#16 - There is a difference between beauty and truth. After

[Stephanie Oswalt]

The last statement is mot important is it? What is it for

Hi ash. Can you please clarify what you're asking. Thanks!

[ashpine17]

Last in the stimulus

[Stephanie Oswalt]

Last in the stimulus

Hi ash,

Please try to provide more detail regarding your questions. We want to be able to help you, but we need to know exactly what you're asking first. Thanks.

[ashpine17]

I mean does the last sentence have a purpise and if so what is it

[Jeff Wren]

Hi ashpine,

I'd recommend reading my earlier post (Post #37) on this question. In that post, I break down how the argument works and what each sentence does in the argument.

It can be found here.

viewtopic.php?f=552&t=4065&start=30

Specifically, the last sentence in the stimulus and its role in the argument are discussed in this part of my post.

"We then get another premise that states that many of the most realistic artworks are NOT the best, which is the opposite of what would be true if beauty equals truth.

Given this new fact, then using the contrapositive, it must be that beauty does NOT equal truth, which is the conclusion of the argument (i.e. there is a difference between beauty and truth)."

So the short answer is that the final sentence in the stimulus is a premise, and it is a critical part of the argument for the reasons that I provide in the earlier post.

Hope that helps.

[LevinKinlsat]

Hello,

I would like to get some clarification on if correct answer could be: the best artwork is the most beautiful. This would not create a sufficient necessary error?

Thanks

[Dana D]

Hi Levin,

I think that could also be a correct answer. The most important thing is that we are looking to tie these two concepts together in order for the argument to make sense.

Best,
Dana

[janetyellen]

Hi Powerscore,

Just wanted to follow up on this thread; I had the exact same questions as blade21cn's post above, and Adam's explanation here didn't seem to address the questions.

Specifically, I still think the argument is valid as is, and we don't need to establish a link between the "best" and "most beautiful" because we're given a premise in the second sentence of the stimulus that already gives us the conditional that we can directly prove the conclusion with (by using the contrapositive, i.e. the final sentence demonstrates the Necessary Condition in that conditional is false, hence we know the Sufficient condition is false, i.e. there must be a difference). Because the "After all,..." conditional is sufficient for us to get to the conclusion, i don't see any reason to link up the best and most beautiful (even though I agree a link has not been established).

Also, the explanation on counter-premise was confusing; in his original post he mentioned that counter-premise is something we have to prove (but that's simply not true? we just have to prove the conclusion); and it's not clear from his explanation what exactly is the role of a counter-premise, and why it matters that he classified the second sentence as a counter-premise rather than a premise.

Any insights would be appreciated, thanks!!

As to your first question, blade21cn, "AB" stands for "Among the Best" or perhaps "Best Art" (so it could have also been BA). You may have missed that the AB is struck through in that post, meaning "not among the best". If the most realistic is not the best, then the best is also not the most realistic. That is a double arrow relationship, unlike your dog/mammal example. If X is not Y, then Y cannot be X either. That's a "no/none/never" structure that means if you are one of these things then you are not the other. But it's also not entirely conditional in this stimulus, because it's just that MANY of the most realistic ones are not among the best, so it might even be better to avoid diagramming that relationship and recognizing instead that it is denying a conditional relationship (that's the counter-premise) rather than creating one.

You're right that "no difference" refers to beauty and truth, but there is no premise telling us about a connection between "beauty" and "best", so that is the gap that needs filling. The argument is not valid, because the author has not said anything to establish that the best artworks are the most beautiful. That was an assumption rather than a premise.

The distinction between a supporter and a defender assumption is not about an inherent difference in the answers, but about the strategy that you use to get there. Thus, any supporter answer is ALSO a defender. You could approach this argument by seeing the gap and looking for something that closes that gap - the supporter strategy. Or, you could attack the argument by saying "but the most beautiful artworks are not necessarily the best ones," and then come up with a response that counters that attack - the defender strategy. Either will get you to the same prephrase and the same answer choice!

And a counter-premise is not something the author is trying to say is untrue. It's a statement that is used to deny the truth of some other statement. The author uses the last statement as a counter-premise against the "after all" statement, to show that "the most realistic pieces of art would be the best " is false.

I hope that clears things up!

[Jeff Wren]

Hi janet,

First, if you haven't already done so, I'd recommend reading my earlier post (Post #37), as that is the best explanation that I can provide for exactly how the argument breaks down step by step. I know there that there are many posts on the forum thread for this question, so it's easy to miss that post.

It can be found here:

viewtopic.php?f=552&t=4065&start=30

You wrote:

Specifically, I still think the argument is valid as is, and we don't need to establish a link between the "best" and "most beautiful" because we're given a premise in the second sentence of the stimulus that already gives us the conditional that we can directly prove the conclusion with

Based on this comment, I think I see where you may be mistaken. If the conditional in the second sentence that you are referring to is "if there were no difference, then the most realistic pieces of art would be the best as well," this is not a premise but is actually an intermediate (or subsidiary) conclusion. This conditional statement is followed by the premise indicator "since," which is a clue that the first half of the sentence is a conclusion rather than a premise. Because it is a conclusion, it needs to be supported by premises, but there is currently a premise missing from the argument (i.e. an assumption) in order to reach that intermediate conclusion. That missing premise/assumption is Answer A.

As for the conditional statement in the first half of second sentence, while it is sometimes described as a counter-premise, it functions as an intermediate conclusion in the argument and needs to be proven to then in turn support the main conclusion. Intermediate conclusions are sometimes described in terms of the role of a premise because they both support the main conclusion (as a premise does) but also are supported themselves by other premises. If you look at the complete question explanation (Post #1), you'll see this statement listed as "Premise (2)/Subordinate Conclusion."

Personally, I recommend simply thinking of the conditional in the second sentence as an intermediate conclusion and the final statement in the argument as the fact that triggers the contrapositive.