Passage Summary: Since a famous artist's boxes look exactly like regular boxes but only the artist's version is considered art, we can conclude that being art isn't just about how something looks.

Conclusion: Visual appearance is not the sole factor that determines whether an object is classified as a work of art.

Reasoning: Two objects (Warhol's boxes and ordinary boxes) look exactly the same, yet one is art and the other is not.

Analysis: The argument proceeds by using a counterexample to refute a general claim. The general claim is 'appearance determines art status.' By presenting two items that are visually identical but have different statuses (one is art, one is not), the author demonstrates that some factor *other* than appearance must be at play. Focus on the structural role of the 'indistinguishable' objects—they serve as the evidence that breaks the link between appearance and art classification.