Passage Summary: Two groups of critics are fighting over whether certain paintings are art, but because they both agree that non-art should be ignored, their conflict isn't about the definition of the word itself.

Conclusion: The disagreement between the two groups of critics is not actually about the definition of the word 'art.'

Reasoning: Both groups agree that if something is not art, it should be ignored; they simply disagree on whether postimpressionist paintings fall into that category.

Analysis: The statement in question is a premise used to establish common ground between the two opposing groups. By showing that the second group admits some paintings aren't art (and should be ignored), the linguist demonstrates that both groups share the same underlying principle for what to do with 'non-art.' This allows the linguist to conclude that the 'meaning' of the word isn't the issue, but rather its application. Look for an answer that describes this as a premise used to support the idea that the critics share a common standard.