Logical reasoning PrepTest 148 · Section 3 · Question 16

Incorrect. The argument establishes that all of them do believe this, so this answer choice isn't something overlooked by the argument but rather ruled out by it.

Incorrect. The argument is about the ability to see great art, so an answer about whether people take advantage of this ability is out of scope.

Incorrect. The stimulus never discusses value, so this answer is out of scope.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
There are more than enough works of art that already exist to satisfy all people for a lifetime, so new artists aren't letting more people see great art.

Answer Anticipation:
The argument asks us to point out a flaw in the argument, and it can be helpful to think about what would disprove the conclusion in order to find that flaw. Here, the argument concludes that contemporary artists aren't providing the ability to see fulfilling art to any new people. Why? Because there's already enough art out there to last anyone a lifetime.

However, it never establishes that the amount of art is the relevant consideration there. It's possible that, while there's plenty of art out there, it's not in easily accessible places. These contemporary artists could provide art to areas that don't have museums with these famous works of art. That possibility is ignored by the argument, and so the correct answer will likely deal with this distribution of the art being relevant to whether there's enough art out there.

Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights a possibility not addressed in the stimulus that creates a problem for it. If the majority of great art is in major cities and world-famous museums, it's possible that, despite the large amount of it, certain people can't get to that art. If a new artist displays their work far away from where this great art is currently displayed, they could enable people in that community to see this art when they otherwise wouldn't. In short, the argument assumes everyone can get to where the art is, and this answer points out that that might not be the case, and new artists could fix that.

Key Takeaway:
When you're having difficulty spotting the flaw in an argument, start with the conclusion. What possibility would disprove that conclusion? If you can identify a situation that would undermine it, you can probably work from that backwards to the flaw.

Incorrect. The argument doesn't state that aesthetic fulfillment can't be derived from contemporary art, just that there's already enough art that, without the new art, no one will be short of art to derive aesthetic fulfillment from. As a comparison, if you already have enough food in your fridge to eat, even if there's other food out there that would be tasty if you had it, you're not missing out on tasty food since you're stocked.