Logical reasoning PrepTest 109 · Section 1 · Question 10

Incorrect. The argument establishes that some art is viewed as shocking, and it concludes that this art should receive public funding. At no point does it discuss most art, let alone rely on it being shocking, so this answer is too strong.

Incorrect. The argument relies on the examples to show that some art is viewed as shocking, not to bring up examples of art that received public funding.

Incorrect. The argument relies only on some modern art also being shocking, not that art has become more or less shocking over time.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen with Necessary Premise

Stimulus Summary:
Art is often shocking, so public funds should support art that is found shocking.

Answer Anticipation:
We pared down the stimulus quite a bit here! It's important to understand why we did so that you can work in a similarly efficient manner.

Here, the argument features one of our favorite types of conclusions—one that is tied directly into the premise. This usually comes in the form of a since statement—the since introduces a premise but also indicates that the sentence will also include a conclusion. That sentence is paraphrased in our summary.

The rest of the stimulus is two examples of art that was seen as shocking/outrageous when first released. Since this is meant to support the view that art is often shocking, and it provides multiple examples, there's not really a gap in that part of the argument. These examples establish a principle/premise that the argument then uses to prove its point. When there's this intermediate step—the examples establish a premise—the examples are generally something that can be ignored when analyzing the logic. It's when the principle/generalization drawn from the examples is itself the main point of the argument that you should look for a gap between the details in the examples and the conclusion in analyzing the logic!

With that established, let's look at that argument! Strengthen with Necessary Premise questions frequently introduce new concepts in the conclusion, and this one is no different—it brings up public funding, whereas the premises don't discuss funding at all. When there's a new concept in the conclusion, that concept needs to be tied into the premises for the argument to work.

So here we need to tie public funding into art. Anything that establishes art should receive public funds even if it's shocking will serve as a necessary assumption here.

Answer Explanation:
This answer is an assumption the argument requires, tying the new concept in the conclusion into the argument. If public funds shouldn't support art, the entire argument falls apart.

Key Takeaway:
Always be on the lookout for new concepts in the conclusion of Strengthen with Necessary Premise questions, as they frequently show up and need to be tied into the premises.

Also, examples are usually present to illustrate a principle. When that principle is a premise, the examples are generally going to be extraneous to any assumption. When that principle is the conclusion, the details of the examples are generally going to lead directly to the assumption.

Incorrect. The argument relies on some art being shocking, but it doesn't rely on nothing else being shocking. If a horrifying crime is also shocking, that doesn't speak to whether art should receive public funding.