PrepTest 141, Section 2, Question 18
Critic: An art historian argues that because fifteenth-century(62 more words not shown)
The argument is flawed in(2 more words not shown)
- Arejects a position(11 more words not shown)
- Billicitly relies on(7 more words not shown)
- Ctakes a necessary(16 more words not shown)
- Dbases its conclusion(7 more words not shown)
- Erejects a position(12 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Why would a flatter-looking painting show greater skill? “Planimetric” just means two-dimensional, without an attempt to suggest depth. I can understand questioning whether that feature measures how well someone paints.
The critic makes that objection: the degree of flatness is irrelevant to mastery. At first, that sounds like a reasonable response to the historian's evidence.
But the flaw question makes us look more closely at what the critic concludes. Is the claim merely that the historian hasn't established greater mastery? No. The critic says fifteenth-century painters did not have greater mastery. A bad reason for believing something doesn't automatically make the belief false.
What we’re looking for
Suppose I predict tomorrow's sunrise because gods appeared in a dream and told me it would happen. You could reject my supposed evidence without thinking the sun therefore won't rise. In the same way, the historian's conclusion could be right for a different reason. Perhaps the painters' brushwork or training would support a claim about their skill. Showing that flatness doesn't support the claim leaves those possibilities open.
Working the answers
- A
The critic attacks the relevance of the evidence given for this position. The argument doesn't bring up some other objectionable belief held by the historian and use that to reject the painting claim. It addresses the reasoning offered here, not the historian's unrelated views.
- B
“Mastery” refers to skill at painting throughout. The speakers disagree about whether the stated feature supports a judgment of skill; the critic doesn't switch the word to a different meaning. Disputing someone's basis for a judgment isn't a change in the meaning of the term.
- C
This would concern a mistake about what makes an argument inadequate: treating something required for inadequacy as enough to establish inadequacy. The critic's mistake occurs at the next step. Even granting that the historian's argument is inadequate, it doesn't follow that the historian's conclusion is false.
- D
The critic's reasons don't contradict each other. Saying that flatness is irrelevant to skill can coexist with saying the earlier painters weren't more skilled. The problem is that the first claim doesn't establish the second, not that the critic asserts two claims that cannot both be true.
- ECorrect
The position is that fifteenth-century painters had greater mastery. The inadequate argument is the historian's attempt to establish that through greater flatness. The critic rejects the position because its offered support fails. As with the sunrise example, a conclusion can be true even when the particular argument given for it is poor.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.