Logical reasoning PrepTest 107 · Section 3 · Question 20

Incorrect. Not being conscious of the passage of time would suggest there isn't a temporal element, or at least not one in the way that the stimulus suggests. This possibility, if anything, aligns with the argument, so it does allow for it.

Incorrect. Since the conclusion is about music generally, and any style of music would need to have some temporal element to it, this isn't a flaw.

Incorrect. The argument is about one essential distinction between music and painting—that doesn't mean they can't have other elements in common.

Incorrect. It doesn't use the metaphor to establish how people experience a painting—it uses it to describe how they experience it. Also, reading has a temporal element to it, so even though the argument says that people don't need to follow one path to "read" a painting, that implies that they follow various paths to "read" it. As such, if anything, the metaphor is a bad one to prove the author's point—not one that assumes its conclusion!

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Music - Sounds and silences in a temporal order
Painting - There is no path that the eye must follow
Conclusion - Music has a temporal elements; painting doesn't

Answer Anticipation:
This stimulus reaches a comparative conclusion—there is an "essential distinction" between hearing music and seeing a painting. That difference? Music has a temporal element, whereas a painting doesn't.

The heart of this conclusion has two parts—first, it says something is "essential," and second, it says that it's a distinction.

Starting with the first, it'd be hard to say that a temporal element to art isn't essential. After all, if a piece of music had all the notes played at the exact same time, that'd drastically affect how you hear it. And if a painting had parts of it appear on screen in a certain order, the same would be true. So let's say that it's unlikely that the "essential" nature of a temporal element to a work of art is up for debate.

Let's dive in, then, to whether this is a "distinction" between music and art.

It's fairly well established in the stimulus that music does have a temporal element—and that reflects with our understanding of music.

So all that's left is to determine whether the argument establishes that paintings don't have a temporal element to them. And while it does establish that there isn't a temporal element similar to music in that the elements aren't presented in a certain order, it doesn't establish that there isn't some temporal element to how someone experiences a work of art. There isn't a path that the eye "must" follow, but that doesn't mean that eyes don't follow a path and thus take in different aspects at different times. Or that a skilled painter can't manipulate the viewer to see different elements at different times. Since the argument fails to establish that there isn't a temporal element to paintings, it fails to establish that this is an essential distinction between music and paintings. Let's look for an answer highlighting that failure.

Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights that a painting is experienced along a "path," suggesting that it does have a temporal element, and thus the conclusion about the lack of one being an essential difference is wrong. This answer points out that the author's assumption isn't a good one, so it is correct.

Key Takeaway:
Comparative conclusions require premises that establish the basis for the comparison, and then statements about each thing being compared dealing with that point of comparison. Here, there was never a definitive statement that paintings lacked a temporal element, and the stimulus pointed out the gap between what it did say about paintings and what it assumed about them.