Passage Summary: The author claims that because we can't easily define things that depend on context—like what a painting represents—we can't have a clear way to define what counts as art.

Conclusion: There are no clear criteria for determining whether an object qualifies as art.

Reasoning: Representation is an aesthetically relevant property that depends on context, and since there are no clear criteria for context-dependent properties, we cannot have clear criteria for art itself.

Analysis: The author is guilty of a major logical leap here. Just because one specific property of art (representation) is context-dependent and hard to define, it doesn't mean the entire concept of 'art' lacks clear criteria. There could be many other ways to define art that don't rely on context-dependent properties. Look for an answer that points out this 'part-to-whole' error. The argument fails to consider that an object might be classified as art based on other, more easily defined characteristics, even if its representational qualities remain fuzzy.