QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Reasoning
CONCLUSION: Costa’s reasoning is wrong.
REASONING: Costa says that it’s intellectually bankrupt to assign art to historical periods. But, Costa’s own theories require assigning work to historical periods.
ANALYSIS: The author is using a version of an ad hominem flaw. Costa’s arguments show he is a hypocrite, but he might nonetheless be right. (In which case both the professor’s and Costa’s theories would be wrong).
___________
- This is a different kind of flaw, an incorrect reversal. Fro this type of answer to be right, the stimulus needs a conditional statement.
Example of flaw: If Costa is wrong, he will be sad. Costa is sad today, so he must be wrong. - If you picked this, you probably thought maybe Costa’s argument and Costa’s theories happened at different times, and perhaps Costa changed his mind. But that’s not so – the stimulus says Costa’s current theories require an assignment, and that Costa criticizes the professor (present tense).
So both of Costa’s ideas are current ideas. - CORRECT. See the analysis above. This describes a version of an ad hominem flaw: hypocrisy. The professor ignores the fact Costa might be right, and therefore both the professor’s and Costa’s theories would be wrong.
If I say “ice cream is bad for you” while eating ice cream, that hypocrisy doesn’t make ice cream good for you! - The professor wasn’t making any claim about art in general. They only talked about four kinds of art: baroque, neoclassical, classical, and romantic French Opera.
It was Costa who mentioned art in general. So, this answer doesn’t describe anything the professor did, and so can’t be a flaw. - The author actually does compare theories about art! They’re saying “my theories can’t be wrong, because Costa’s theories do the same thing”.
Free Logical Reasoning lesson
Get a free sample of the Logical Reasoning Mastery Seminar. Learn tips for solving LR questions
Leave a Reply