请教LR一题

yiner0111

Shanna: Owners of any work of art, simply by
virtue of ownership, ethically have the right to
destroy that artwork if they find it morally or
aesthetically distasteful, or if caring for it
becomes inconvenient.


Jorge: Ownership of unique artworks, unlike
ownership of other kinds of objects, carries
the moral right to possess but not to destroy.
A unique work of art with aesthetic or
historical value belongs to posterity and so
must be preserved, whatever the personal
wishes of its legal owner.
On the basis of their statements, Shanna and Jorge
are committed to disagreeing about the truth of
which one of the following statements?


(A) Anyone who owns a portrait presenting his or
her father in an unflattering light would for
that reason alone be ethically justified in
destroying it.
(B) People who own aesthetically valuable works
of art have no moral obligation to make
them available for public viewing.
(C) Valuable paintings by well-known artists are
seldom intentionally damaged or destroyed
by their owners.
(D) If a piece of sculpture is not unique, its owner
has no ethical obligation to preserve it if
doing so proves burdensome.
(E) It is legally permissible for a unique and
historically valuable mural to be destroyed
by its owner if he or she tires of it.

The correct answer is A.

What confuses me is that though S would surely agree to destroy the portrait, we cannot conclude that J would disagree. Coz (A) doesn't tell us whether the "father's portrait" is valuable, not to say it is unique. Since we don't know whether the "father's portrait" is unique, we cannot ensure that J would disagree.

s_dUSA

A ALONE justify B: means: if A，then B.

S: agree
J: disagree, because for him, other factors has to be considered except A, for example: unique or not, aesthetic or historical value or not. No matter what, J won't agree that A itself can justify B, other factors should be taken into consideration

玛莎丁丁

The main disagreement between them is whether an owner is justified to destroy a work of art for the SOLE  reason that he himself dislikes it. (not exactly precise) The father's portrait, i think, could be described as having ''historical value belongs to posterity''. Family root thing. (I remember there's a LR question about a mum who wants to sell a painting of her parents to afford her daughter into college, her husband refuted her proposal by arguing the painting's special family value. The dispute between them was whether connecting their daughter to family root by preserving the painting overrides the college thing...Roughly)

yiner0111

Thanks for your help! I have figured it out.