Kartikeya40
Can someone please explain why E is wrong? Even though his paintings were highly unusual, they could be due to his creativity. I see that most of the explanations have put "Irrelevant" for E. I just don't understand why it's irrelevant. Art Critics are non-artists - meaning their perceptions can be distorted.
Here's (E):
E. allow for the possibility that artists see the world differently than do nonartistsNow, here's why (E) is not correct.
The conclusion isn't based on the fact that the "elongated figures in the paintings of El Greco's" are different from how non-artists see things or simply different from reality.
The conclusion is based on the fact that El Greco's images are "so unusual." We can take "so unusual" to mean that the "elongated figures" are different from figures in other paintings. In other words, they are not just different from reality, they are "unusual" painted figures that are DIFFERENT FROM OTHER ARTIST'S FIGURES.
So, even if artists do see the world differently from how nonartists do, that fact would not serve as an alternative explanation for the fact that El Greco's figures are "unusual," meaning not only different from what nonartists see but also different from what other artists see.
Thus, it's not true that the argument is flawed because it does not "allow for the possibility that artists see the world differently than do nonartists" since, even if it's true that artist see the world differently from how nonartists do, the argument still works.