Q12 - Surrealist: Many artists mistakenly

[lorraineogan]

I was down to A and E.

I chose E. But I want to make sure I know why A is correct.

The conclusion states, "[U]sing the power of artistic representation solely to preserve and reinforce objects that would exist even without artists is an ironic waste."

I think the key word in A is "merely," as it is similar to the use of "solely" in the stimulus. The surrealist allows for some representation in art, but thinks it should not be "solely" or "merely" used.

Why is E wrong?

[ohthatpatrick]

There's a couple things about Main Conclusion questions you should know to help you out here.

1. The correct answer is just a paraphrase of one of the ideas in the paragraph.

2. The conclusion will almost never be the last sentence (that's way too easy).

So first of all, does (E) paraphrase one of the ideas in the paragraph?

What does the author say about true works of art ?

Nothing. So (E) is hopeless. The author also never comments on the frequency of artworks based on objects inside the psyche vs. artworks based on objects outside the psyche.

Instead, the author is talking about value / worthwhile-ness / waste of art based on inside vs. outside the psyche.

The second thing to address here is "should we consider the last sentence the Conclusion"?

Clearly, there aren't any real Premise on Conclusion trigger words to go off of, so we have to use the meaning ...

Prem --supports--> Conclusion

We know from the "Although" that the 1st half of the 2nd sentence is really a counterpoint. So we only have two ideas at play in the author's core.

It's a mistake to think that models for art should be taken only from outside the psyche.
and
Using art solely to preserve and reinforce objects that would exist even without artists is an ironic waste.

Which idea supports the other? You can try the Why or Therefore Test. (I typically use the Why test)

We can see that the first sentence must be the Conclusion, because the second half of the second sentence gives a reason for believing the Conclusion.

It's a mistake to think that models for art should be taken only from outside the psyche.
Why?
Because
Using art solely to preserve and reinforce objects that would exist even without artists is an ironic waste.

Once again, when you're doing a Main Conclusion question, you should expect that the conclusion will almost always be the 1st sentence or a sentence in the middle (coming right after a "but/yet/however"). It will almost never be the last sentence.

Additionally, it will almost always be disagreeing with someone else's opinion/thought/notion.

So, once we've correctly identified the first sentence as the conclusion, we just need to find an answer choice that sounds like the first sentence.

(A) is a close paraphrase.

Notice that we're not focusing on the "FACT" that many artists mistakenly say something. We're focusing on the "OPINION" the author has that the artists are wrong to say it.

When authors are disagreeing with someone else's point of view, it's beneficial to take a sec to rephrase that point of view the way the AUTHOR sees it.

For example,
Many people believe that vanilla is the best flavor of ice cream. But chocolate contains more antioxidants.

Conclusion?
"vanilla is not the best flavor of ice cream"

=== other answers ==
(B) This is a distortion of what was actually said. By analogy, saying "Using an iPad solely as a paperweight is a waste" is not the same thing as saying "iPads are used solely as paperweights".

(C) The conclusion is about whether artists should base their work on models taken from inside vs. outside the psyche.

(D) This points to the clause prefaced by 'Although'. The main conclusion would never be prefaced by 'although/despite/while' type wording.

Hope this helps.

[abkrusemark]

I am having trouble seeing how the premise supports the conclusion in this paragraph. Does “objects that would exist even without artists” refer to “models… taken from outside the psyche” or the opposite of that (ie pianos, birds, etc)?

Because IF the author believes that painting pianos / birds / [things in the psyche] is a waste, why would she argue that other artists “mistakenly think that models need be taken only from outside the psyche”?

Or is it the case that because she concedes pianos, birds, etc are acceptable models (albeit a waste), therefore not all models need be taken from outside the psyche?

[ohthatpatrick]

I think "models taken from outside the psyche" IS "pianos, birds, etc."

The logical opposite is "models taken from INSIDE the psyche" ... wouldn't THAT be the private, surreal, nameless brew of our subconscious? (Basically, Pixar's "Inside Out")

"external objects" = "pianos, birds" = "models taken from outside the psyche"

We can make even the vulgarest piano (?) beautiful, but what a waste! That piano will still be around for 100 years for people to look at. The world doesn't need an artistic rendering of an external object as much as it does artistic renderings of the scarce, fleeting, private world of INSIDE the psyche.

[jm.kahn]

Choice-A is different from the first sentence in the stimulus as there is difference between "something need not be done" versus "something should not be done". It's a big leap to go from "need not" to "should not".

1st sentence: models need not be taken only from outside the psyche

choice A: an artist's work should not merely represent objects from outside the psyche

it seems that the support in the stim about how work solely on objects outside of psyche is an ironic waste can support the leap from "need not" to "should not". but it is not clear then how the structure of the argument looks like.

Can an expert explain this in light of the above issue?

[stacksdoe]

Choice-A is different from the first sentence in the stimulus as there is difference between "something need not be done" versus "something should not be done". It's a big leap to go from "need not" to "should not".

1st sentence: models need not be taken only from outside the psyche

choice A: an artist's work should not merely represent objects from outside the psyche

it seems that the support in the stim about how work solely on objects outside of psyche is an ironic waste can support the leap from "need not" to "should not". but it is not clear then how the structure of the argument looks like.

Can an expert explain this in light of the above issue?

Well first, there is no "need not" anywhere in the stimulus, unless I'm missing something. The first sentence reads: "Many artists mistakenly think that models need to be taken only from outside the psyche". In other words, you understand it correctly, in that "models 'need not' be taken only from outside..." This only supports the main conclusion, that models should not just be a representation of outside objects, otherwise if "art" is that way, then it's "ironic waste" .
I hope that explains

[HughM388]

The correct answer choice here contains a pretty glaring grammatical problem that radically changes the meaning of the sentence. To say that an artist "should not merely represent objects" does not at all capture what the surrealist is saying, as many test-takers may have explicitly discerned or at least intuited. For the problem as the surrealist sees it is not with the act of representation using the power of representation, but with restricting that representation to a particular purpose.

The adverb "merely" as it is clumsily used by the LSAC writers here is modifying the verb "represent," as if to say that an artist's work should do more than just represent—perhaps it should "transform" or "sublimate" or "transmogrify." Who knows?

However, to write the answer in the only way in which it makes sense for the sake of this question introduces a curious case in English grammar (which has plenty of them), in which an adverb will function like an adjective. One could merely (sorry, couldn't help it) transpose the "merely" and move it to just before "objects" where it will then modify the noun. One could similarly use "only," another adverb that frequently does service as an adjective.

There are questions on the LSAT where the ambiguities of the language become the focus of the question, and that's fine. But it's bad form, on a test with such high stakes, to allow unaddressed grammatical errors to create ambiguity. LSAC writers and editors should have caught this one.