Q11 - Some critics claim that

[b91302310]

I could not figure out why answer choice (D) is better than (C), could anyone explain it ?

Thanks

[cyruswhittaker]

The argument hinges on the statment following "But...." which serves as the primary reasoning used by the author to provide a counter to the critic: the criticism is unwarranted because wider distribution is impractical.

D provides a general principle (makes an overarching sufficient assumption explicit) supporting this by saying that in order to criticize an arrangment, there must be a more equitable arrangement that is practically attainable.

So there's a necessary condition attached to when criticism is warranted, and since in this instance it is not met (it's impractical), then criticism is not warranted, and hence the critics' claim is unwarranted.

[b91302310]

Get it! Thanks

[randitect]

Why not B?? Thank you.

[sumukh09]

B is not the principle that is being referred to by those countering the critics claim. B talks about the number of people that stand to benefit from a facility but the principle being adhered to by the opposition of the critics talks about the impracticality of the distribution advocated by the critics. This impracticality has nothing to do with benefiting as many people as possible - as B states - but rather because there aren't that many masterpieces to begin with, wider distribution wouldn't be sensible. Also "greatest possible benefit" is out of scope as that is something not touched upon in the prompt.

[Mab6q]

I missed this question so I thought I'd try my best to provide an explanation here.

The criticism that it's unfair for huge metropolitan museums to house so many great works of art is unwarranted.

Support 1: the limited number of masterpieces makes wider distribution impractical.

Support 2: if masterpiece is to be fully appreciated, it must be seen along side other works that provide a social and historical context.

One gap that I see is that the argument assumes that we should distribute great works of art so that they can be fully appreciated.

The relationship between the first premise and the conclusion is: wider distribution impractical --> criticism unwarranted.

Criticism warranted --> wider distribution practical.

Answer Choices:

A. that would be something the critics would probably apply to .

B. is tempting, as it seems similar to our second premise regarding fully appreciating a work of art. Hold on to.

C. this is also very similar to A, as it tells us that we shouldn't place many great works in one area because it might be fully appreciated at the cost of others having access to it.

D. hits at our first premise. reasonable to criticize as unfair (criticism warranted) --> more equitable arrangement that is practical (wider distribution practical) . Wider distribution falls under the scope of the necessary condition here because this is a principle question.

E. noting about original intent in the argument.

Back to B, which is what I originally chose . My reasoning for it was that it seems to play on the second premise - the greatest benefit possible equates to fully appreciated Looking back now, the two are not the same. A masterpiece might be fully appreciated without providing the greatest possible benefit to the greatest number of people.

If I wasn't so quick to eliminate D I probably would've seen why B was not the best choice. Any other thoughts on why B is incorrect. I not sure I agree with the idea that just because it failed to address the first premise it's wrong.

[WaltGrace1983]

Back to B, which is what I originally chose . My reasoning for it was that it seems to play on the second premise - the greatest benefit possible equates to fully appreciated Looking back now, the two are not the same. A masterpiece might be fully appreciated without providing the greatest possible benefit to the greatest number of people.

If I wasn't so quick to eliminate D I probably would've seen why B was not the best choice. Any other thoughts on why B is incorrect. I not sure I agree with the idea that just because it failed to address the first premise it's wrong.

I eliminated (A) and (B) because they were talking about "facilities," which to me was akin to "museums." The question is about the works of art themselves, not the facilities in which they are house in.

(C) If this were the case, then nothing would be reasonable! You must "deprive" some members of society of a work of art. Also, we are not talking about redistribution - only saying that there aren't any more practical options so the criticism is unwarranted.

(D) is correct due to the contrapositive. (Reasonable to criticize as unfair) --> (More equitable arrangement)

We know ~(More equitable arrangement)

Thus, ~(Reasonable to criticize as unfair)

(E) We have no idea what the "original intentions" were so we cannot speak to anything here.

[seychelles1718]

what would be the flaw (assumption) of the argument?
Is it that the argument assumes that the limited distribution of art works is practical?

[ohthatpatrick]

Given that our conclusion is "this criticism is in principle unwarranted", we need to flesh that out with the borrowed language ...

this criticism = "unfair that so many great works are in big city museums"

this criticism is unwarranted = "it IS fair ..."

So the author's conclusion is basically,
"It IS fair that so many great works of art are in big city museums"
why?
"because doing otherwise (distributing them more widely) is impractical"

Thus, we could say an assumption being made is that
"If doing otherwise is impractical, then a certain practice is, in principle, fair."

That's basically the contrapositive of (D).

[YiX773]

Given that our conclusion is "this criticism is in principle unwarranted", we need to flesh that out with the borrowed language ...

this criticism = "unfair that so many great works are in big city museums"

this criticism is unwarranted = "it IS fair ..."

So the author's conclusion is basically,
"It IS fair that so many great works of art are in big city museums"
why?
"because doing otherwise (distributing them more widely) is impractical"

Thus, we could say an assumption being made is that
"If doing otherwise is impractical, then a certain practice is, in principle, fair."

That's basically the contrapositive of (D).

Hi Patrick. Could you please explain why (C) is wrong?
I found this works too and I am confused:
"It IS fair that so many great works of art are in big city museums"
why?
"because redistribution (distributing them more widely) will deprive some members of these goods to supply others and that is unreasonable"