Logical reasoning PrepTest 107 · Section 3 · Question 18

Incorrect. As we noted in our Anticipation, the principle can't support a conclusion that a work is truly great—the principle presents necessary conditions for that judgment, not sufficient ones.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Facts

Question Type:
Must Be True (Principle)

Stimulus Summary:
Truly great art → Originality AND Far-reaching artistic influence

Answer Anticipation:
Must Be True (Principle) questions frequently present two conditionals with "matching" judgments in one of the terms. From there, we should take contrapositives to get those judgments in the necessary condition of the respective conditionals, and then find an answer that establishes the sufficient conditions in one of the principles before concluding the necessary condition.

This question is more straightforward—there's only a single conditional. However, it presents necessary conditions for a work of art to be truly great ("it is necessary"). Since the answers are likely to describe a work of art's originality and/or influence before concluding something about whether it's truly great, we should take the contrapositive:
not Originality OR not Far-reaching artistic influence → not Truly great art

Note that the principle in the stimulus can only support a conclusion that a work of art isn't truly great—there are no sufficient conditions to justify a conclusion that a work is truly great. As such, we can immediately eliminate any answer that reaches that conclusion while looking for one that reaches the opposite conclusion based on that work of art lacking either originality or influence.

Answer Explanation:
While the works of art here are original, they aren't broadly influential. Since that is by itself a sufficient condition to conclude that a work isn't truly great (the sufficient condition of the principle is an OR statement), this argument is justified by the principle in the stimulus, so it is correct.

Key Takeaway:
Conditional statements allow you to conclude the necessary condition based on the presence of the sufficient condition(s), not the other way around. Noting that can usually allow you to eliminate 2-3 answers in a Must Be True (Principle) question.

Incorrect. As we noted in our Anticipation, the principle can't support a conclusion that a work is truly great—the principle presents necessary conditions for that judgment, not sufficient ones.

Incorrect. This argument uses a work not being truly great as a premise to conclude that a work isn't original. First, that illegally reverse our contrapositive. Second, that "picks" one of the two options—a work that isn't truly great could be original but not influential.

Incorrect. This answer is interesting—it aligns with the original conditional in that it uses a work of art being truly great as a premise. And from that premise, it does conclude the two necessary conditions, which would be valid . . . if it didn't also conclude that the art has broad popular appeal as well. Since that aspect of the conclusion can't be justified based on the principle in the stimulus, this answer is incorrect.