LR Question 18 Explanation
QUESTION TEXT: Critic: An art historian argues that because…
QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Reasoning
CONCLUSION: It is wrong to say that 15th century painters were better than 16th century painters.
REASONING: It’s wrong to say that 15th century paintings were better because they were planimetric.
ANALYSIS: Suppose I make the following argument: “The moon is made of green cheese, therefore it’s interesting.”
That’s a stupid argument. My evidence is wrong: the moon is not made of green cheese. But does that mean the moon is boring?
Of course not. A conclusion isn’t false just because someone makes a bad argument.
The author showed the planimetric argument is not convincing. So the argument for the conclusion is wrong. But that doesn’t mean the conclusion (15th century painters are better) is wrong.
___________
- This author didn’t make an ad hominem flaw.
Example of flaw: An art historian argued that 15th century painters were better. But that art historian smells funny, so he’s wrong. - To choose this kind of answer, you need to show two clearly different definitions of mastery.
Example of flaw: The painter has mastery over painting: he can paint very well. Therefore, he has mastery over all of painting: he controls the lives of all painters. - There was no sufficient-necessary error.
Example of flaw: If the argument were wrong, its author would hesitate. The author hesitates, so the argument is wrong. - A contradiction is two things that can’t both be true. That didn’t happen here.
Example of flaw: This painting is the best in the world, and almost as good as the one I own. - CORRECT. The position is: 15th century painters were better.
The author showed that the art historian’s argument wasn’t a good one. But a fact is not false just because a bad argument was made for that fact.
More Resources for Flaw Questions
- Flaw drills: Use these to practice making examples of abstract flaws.
- Intro Course lesson: This intro course lesson covers Flaw questions.
- Mastery Seminar lesson: This LR Mastery seminar lesson covers flaw questions.
I am still confused. Isn’t it the case that when someone rejects another’s argument, in order to also reject the conclusion without committing the fallacy fallacy, they should introduce new evidence, which could then attack the conclusion. In my opinion, that is exactly what we have in this case. The critic presents evidence that the degree of how much a painting is planiametric is irrelevant to whether the painter has greater mastery or not. Thus, he has successfully refuted the art historian’s premises that BECAUSE the 15th century paintings were planiametric the 15th century painters had greater mastery. For all we know, the only requirement for a painter to have greater mastery could be for the painting to be planiametric…
Remember, the critic’s conclusion is just that it is wrong to say that 15th century painters were better painters, and the premise of the critic’s argument is that the degree to which a painting is planimetric is irrelevant to the painter’s mastery. The “because” that you’ve highlighted is a premise indicator.
For that reason, (E) is correct. The critic is attacking a weak argument, but to counter one weak argument for a conclusion is not to disprove that conclusion.