Passage Summary: A city official argues that a controversial stone structure is definitely art because it makes experts argue about the definition of art, which is exactly what art is supposed to do.

Conclusion: The stone edifice qualifies as art.

Reasoning: The purpose of art is to make experts debate ideas about art, and this edifice has successfully caused experts to debate what constitutes art.

Analysis: To make this argument bulletproof, we need to bridge the gap between 'fulfilling the purpose of art' and 'being art.' The councilperson defines the *purpose* of art, but never explicitly states that anything achieving that purpose is, by definition, art. Look for a 'Sufficient Assumption' that creates a formal link: 'If something fulfills the purpose of art, then it is art.' This would turn the councilperson's evidence into a guarantee for their conclusion.