Carolyn: The artist Marc Quinn has displayed, behind aglass plate, biologically ... ...
The dialogue provides most support for the claim that
Carolyn and Arnold disagree over whether the object
described by Quinn as a conceptual portrait of Sir John
Sulston
(A) should be considered to be art
(B) ...
(C) ...
(D) ...
(E) ...
*This question is included in
Free Complete Section: LR-B, June '07 LSAT
Replies to This Thread: 0
|
----
Posted: 07/28/2012 15:26
I don't understand the answer. It seems like they both agreed it was a portrait just a different kind. One stated its a conceptual portrait and the other a maximally realistic portrait. Please explain. Thank you!
Admin
Replies to This Thread: 0
|
----
Posted: 08/01/2012 19:11
Cheri, not really. If you read Carolyn's statement carefully, it is clear she does not agree it should be called a portrait, since according to Carolyn, it bears no resemblance to Sulston.
Replies to This Thread: 2
|
----
Posted: 01/01/2013 12:33
Cheri's explanation makes more sense because there no dispute over the fact that the whole point of discussion here is a real biologically replicated DNA, but the issue is whether it has to bear cognizance resemblance... This makes the correct choice A not D
Contributor
Reply 1 of 2
Replies to This Thread: 0
|
----
Posted: 01/01/2013 17:14
Bereket,
Supplemental to what Arcadia said, in analogy, the discussion is about whether an unbuilt car while showing the separate parts can be called a car. Thus whether or not it is a car in the first place.
Niels
Reply 2 of 2
Replies to This Thread: 0
|
----
Posted: 07/17/2014 10:22
Absolutely not. They re not even talking about whether it is art or it is not. According to carolyn point of view the DNA just cant be the portrait of the person because there is not " recognizable resemblance to its subject"
Replies to This Thread: 0
|
----
Posted: 01/01/2013 12:44
I apologize for my spelling errors!
Replies to This Thread: 0
|
----
Posted: 01/29/2013 18:16
They where arguing over what constitutes a portrait.
One person argues DNA is sufficient the other argues not.
They where not arguing from where the DNA was derived.
One felt it was a portrait and the other felt it wasn't.
