Summer is Coming! Join the Game of Timers Competition to Win Epic Prizes. Registration is Open. Game starts Mon July 1st.

It is currently 18 Jul 2019, 02:09

Close

GMAT Club Daily Prep

Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Critic: An art historian argues that because fifteenth­ century Europe

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Find Similar Topics 
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
P
Joined: 07 Dec 2017
Posts: 317
GMAT 1: 660 Q50 V30
Reviews Badge
Critic: An art historian argues that because fifteenth­ century Europe  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 29 Aug 2018, 19:51
10
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  95% (hard)

Question Stats:

42% (02:18) correct 58% (02:10) wrong based on 221 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics


Critic: An art historian argues that because fifteenth­ century European paintings were generally more planimetric (that is, two-dimensional with no attempt at suggesting depth) than were sixteenth­ century paintings, fifteenth-century painters had a greater mastery of painting than did sixteenth­ century painters. However, this conclusion is wrong. Fifteenth-century European painters did not have a greater mastery of painting, for the degree to which a painting is planimetric is irrelevant to the painter's mastery."

The argument is flawed in that it


(A) rejects a position merely because the proponent of the position has other objectionable views"

(B) illicitly relies on two different meanings of the term " mastery"

(C) takes a necessary condition for an argument's being inadequate to be a sufficient condition for an argument's being inadequate

(D) bases its conclusion on two claims that contradict each other

(E) rejects a position on the grounds that an inadequate argument has been made for it

LSAT
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 14 Aug 2017
Posts: 15
GMAT 1: 660 Q49 V34
Reviews Badge
Re: Critic: An art historian argues that because fifteenth­ century Europe  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 26 Sep 2018, 22:45
I choose C as it can be said that mastery can be a necessary condition for conclusion to hold but could not be sufficent for conclusion to hold. In other words if this is X statement which is necessary but we have another set of statements Y and Z that are sufficient to prove ,then I think conclusion cannot be proven wrong on the basis of one condition

Please let know where I went wrong
Manager
Manager
User avatar
G
Joined: 29 Nov 2018
Posts: 169
CAT Tests
Critic: An art historian argues that because fifteenth­ century Europe  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 10 Jun 2019, 17:58
AshutoshB wrote:
Critic: An art historian argues that because fifteenth­ century European paintings were generally more planimetric (that is, two-dimensional with no attempt at suggesting depth) than were sixteenth­ century paintings, fifteenth-century painters had a greater mastery of painting than did sixteenth­ century painters. However, this conclusion is wrong. Fifteenth-century European painters did not have a greater mastery of painting, for the degree to which a painting is planimetric is irrelevant to the painter's mastery."

The argument is flawed in that it


Conclusion:" this conclusion is wrong "

Art Historian: because fifteenth­ century European paintings were generally more planimetric -->fifteenth-century painters had a greater mastery of painting than...

Critic: planimetric is irrelevant to the painter's mastery

The critic does not contradict the art historian or put forward objectionable views. He simply labels the basis as irrelevant.

(A) rejects a position merely because the proponent of the position has other objectionable views"
No objectionable views put forth

(B) illicitly relies on two different meanings of the term " mastery"
Same meaning

(C) takes a necessary condition for an argument's being inadequate to be a sufficient condition for an argument's being inadequate
Art historian presents a 'sufficient condition'- more planimetric -->greater mastery of painting- to support his side of the argument. The critic simply states that its 'irrelevant', i.e. neither necessary nor sufficient.

(D) bases its conclusion on two claims that contradict each other
No contradiction

(E) rejects a position on the grounds that an inadequate argument has been made for it
The critic dismisses the art historian's view by sighting that the the support provided for the art historian's argument is inadequate (as the critic has nullified the one premise/support provided for the art historian's argument) and leaves it unto the art historian to provide more support. There is no opposition of views or contradiction.
Correct.
_________________
Hit Kudos to keep the community alive !
GMAT Club Bot
Critic: An art historian argues that because fifteenth­ century Europe   [#permalink] 10 Jun 2019, 17:58
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Critic: An art historian argues that because fifteenth­ century Europe

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  





Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne