Isn't A incorrect because it isn't supported?

@mikeheath, Let's take a look. We can diagram the stimulus: Great art< - some - >20th century art Great art - >Original ideas Great art - >Influential We can infer three things from these statements: 20th century art< - some - >Original ideas 20th century art< - some - >Influential Original ideas< - some - >Influential (A) says, "Some influential art involves original ideas." (A) corresponds to the third inference we made from the stimulus. We know that this must be true because if all great art involves original ideas and if all great art is influential, there must be some overlap between influential art and great ideas. I suggest reviewing the lessons on quantifiers, as those will help you solidify your quantifier translations more easily. Because (A) is an inference we can draw, it's incorrect since we're looking for the one answer choice that DOES NOT follow logically from the stimulus. Does this make sense? Let us know if you have any questions!

So, some influential art involves original ideas because: Great art - >Original ideas Great art - >Influential Thus, Original ideas - some- Influential? Because Great art is sufficient in both premises, original ideas and influential art have an overlap.

@mikeheath, That is correct. To reiterate our point, we are told that all great art involves original ideas and that all great art is influential. Therefore, the existence of great art requires at least one instance of influential art and original ideas overlapping. Does that make sense?

I've read this answer and I still don't seem to understand how we deduced 'Original ideas <-some-> influential'. Could you please help with that? it would mean a lot.

@ravi I follow your explanation until you get to the third deduction of Original ideas< - some - >Influential. I thought you could only combine two "most" statements, not "some."