Explanation of answer choices

Let's diagram the set of statements. "Some twentieth-century art is great art." P1: 20thA-some-GA GA-some-20thA "All great art involves original ideas." P2: GA ==> IOI not IOI ==> not GA "any art that is not influential cannot be great art." P3: not IA ==> not GA GA ==> IA Now let's look at the answer choices. (A): "Some influential art involves original ideas." (A): IA-some-IOI IOI-some-IA Well we know from P2 that "GA ==> IOI" and we know from the contrapositive of P3 that "GA ==> IA." Whenever the sufficient conditions of two Sufficient & Necessary statements are the same, we can combine their necessary conditions into a some statement like so: IOI-some-IA, which is answer choice (A). Thus, answer choice (A) can be logically concluded from the set of statements. (D): "Only art that is influential and involves original ideas is great art." (D): GA ==> IA and IOI not IA or not IOI ==> not GA Well, we know from P2 that "GA ==> IOI," and we know from the contrapositive of P3 that "GA ==> IA." Thus, all "GA will have "IOI" and "IA," which is what answer choice (D) states, since we know that the word "only" introduces a necessary condition. Do not mistake this statement to mean that the only type of great art is that which is influential and involves original ideas, because that is a wholly different statement. Therefore, answer choice (D) can be logically concluded from the set of statements. (E): "Some twentieth-century art is influential and involves original ideas." (E) 20thA-some-IA IA-some-20thA 20thA-some-IOI IOI-some-20thA The "and" in the necessary condition acts as a conjunction joining two separate thoughts together, meaning we can separate each one into its own necessary condition. For example, if you has A ==> B & C, you could split that into A ==> B and A ==> C. Now, we can connect P1 to P2, like so: 20thA-some-GA ==> IOI to conclude: 20thA-some-IOI. We can also connect P1 to the contrapositive of P3 like so: 20thA-some-GA ==> IA to conclude: 20thA-some-IA. Thus, answer choice (E) can also be logically concluded from the statements above. Hope that was helpful! Please let us know if you have any other questions.

It is awesome clear. Thanks!

Like i said before i dont want to read a paragraph wheres the video

There is no need for a video explanation to this question since it has no major visual components. Please refer to the written explanation above for a breakdown of the problem. Hope that helps! Please let us know if you have any other questions.

I don't see the corresponding explanations for choice (B) and (C) above. Could you please add? Also it would be much easier to read the long parenthetical explanations if there was some way to distinguish, either by underlining or bolding, the explanation for each answer choice.

Hello, how does C set up? I -> AIOI, Not AIOI -> Not I. The passage does not mention influential but influential art? Is that the reasoning that it does not follow logically? Thank you.

@Alex we know "only" introduces a necessary condition so (C) would be diagrammed as follows: I ==> AOI not AOI ==> not I From the stimulus, we know the following: "Some twentieth-century art is great art." 20thCA-some-GA GA-some-20thCA "All great art involves original ideas . . . " GA ==> OI not OI ==> not GA "any art that is not influential cannot be great art." not IA ==> not GA GA ==> IA So while the passage does in fact mention influential art, (C) does not follow logically from the information in the stimulus. Hope this helps! Please let us know if you have any other questions.

thanks that was helpful!