Naomi: One critical interpretation of an artwork is superior

can someone please explain this ....

We use POE to answer this question.

Given that Naomi states "all things being equal", the quality aspect that Harold talks about is already considered in her argument.

Thus - A, C, D and E can be eliminated using POE and we get our answer here as B (as it is the best remaining option).

MartyMurray KarishmaB Can you please help on this question ?

Posted from my mobile device

sayan640 snigdha3108 it is B because Naomi mentions that "all things being equal", so you can understand that she is comparing critical interpretations of equal factors of analysis (like quality), an interpretation that accounts for more aspects will be superior.

But Harold mischaracterizes Naomi's statements when he restates it by saying "It's ridiculous to suggest that simply addressing more aspects of a work is a mark of superiority." She did not say that simply addressing more aspects of a work is a mark superiority.

KarishmaB AjiteshArun
Can you please help me understand how Harold is restating Naomi s argument ?
He is more of disproving it and trying to find a flaw in it.

Posted from my mobile device

­Hi sayan640,

Yes, Harold is trying to go against Naomi's position, but we don't need to describe Harold's response here. Instead, we need to figure out why it isn't a good response. That is, we need to find a flaw ("Harold's response is most vulnerable to the criticism...") in Harold's response.

Here's what Harold says:
1. But you're leaving out an essential element: the quality of the interpretation.

2. It's ridiculous to suggest that simply addressing more aspects of a work is a mark of superiority.

Naomi includes "all other things being equal" in her statement, which tells us that she thinks accounting for more aspects is important if everything else is the same. In statement (2), Harold suggests that Naomi believes {more aspects} on its own is a mark of superiority. That's fine, but he ignores the "if everything else is the same" bit.­

That was really subtle. Any advice as to how to reject option A and option C ?
Still which part of the sentence helps you understand that Harold was restating Naomi s argument ?

Posted from my mobile device

MartyMurray KarishmaB GMATGuruNY Could anyone of you please explain this CR? Thank you.

I selected D: It fails to establish that the quality of an interpretation can be ascertained.
I could not find a better option and because I thought the quality of a work can be ascertained by considering multiple aspects of that work. Is "can be ascertained" a strong phrase for a correct answer?

I am not understanding B. "It mischaracterizes Naomi's argument in the guise of restating it." How is the argument being restated by Harold?

Moreover, it is not a weaken question. Method of reasoning with logical flaw is what the tag should be.­ bb could you update the tag please? thank you.

The OA to a weaken CR offers new information -- a PREMISE not contained in the passage -- that hurts the conclusion.
This is not a weaken CR but a FLAW CR.
The OA to a flaw CR does NOT offer new information.
It merely DESCRIBES what the argument does wrong.

Harold: But you're leaving out an essential element: the quality of the interpretation. It's ridiculous to suggest that simply addressing more aspects of a work is a mark of superiority.

Harold presents the portion in red as a restatement of Naomi's conclusion.
But this is not what Naomi says.
Naomi does not claim that the number of aspects is the ONLY thing that matters.
When Harold asserts that the quality of the interpretation is an essential element, Naomi might very well agree.
What Naomi says is this:
If Mary's interpretation and John's interpretation are equal in all respects except one -- Mary's addresses more aspects than John's -- then Mary's is superior to John's.
Since the red portion purports to restate Naomi's conclusion but actually mischaracterizes it, B accurately describes the flaw in Harold's response.

­

­Thank you. Yes, I did mean to write it is "not" a weaken question, and I corrected that in my comment.

Understanding the argument - ­
Naomi: One critical interpretation of an artwork is superior to another if, all other things being equal, it accounts for more aspects of that work. For example, accounting for a work's style and content is superior to accounting for only its style. - Think of a comparison between A and B; the superior would be the one with all the qualities of the other and much more. This interpretation takes into account the quality and quantity. 

Harold: But you're leaving out an essential element: the quality of the interpretation. It's ridiculous to suggest that simply addressing more aspects of a work is a mark of superiority. - Harold assumes that Naomi doesn't consider quality and that he takes quantity into account, but that interpretation is wrong. Naomi takes both into account. 

Harold's response is most vulnerable to the criticism that it

(A) does not offer a counterexample to disprove Naomi's claim - We can still criticize without a counterexample. Wrong. 

(B) mischaracterizes Naomi's argument in the guise of restating it - Yes. While inferring Naomi's argument, Harold hides that Naomi already considers quantity and quality. He misleadingly persuades the reader that Naomi misses it, but Naomi, in reality, didn't miss that. 

(C) fails to consider that Naomi may have additional criteria in mind - No additional criteria are mentioned in Naomi's argument. 

(D) fails to establish that the quality of an interpretation can be ascertained - in simple English, it means "fails to establish that the quality of an interpretation can be measured or validated." Whether or not the quality can be measured somehow is not an issue. The real issue is that while Naomi implicitly considered both quality and quantity, Harold conveniently assumed that he didn't consider quality.

(E) claims that Naomi's reasoning leads to an absurd conclusion when taken to an extreme - no. ­

Naomi is essentially saying that the factor she cites is NECESSARY.

Nowhere does she say that it is SUFFICIENT.

Harold contends that Naomi is saying that her factor is both NECESSARY and SUFFICIENT.

This is a factually incorrect contention on its face.

Posted from my mobile device

­Hi AjiteshArun GMATGuruNY KarishmaB MartyMurray
I found C & D more interesting than others and finally chose (C) over (D). Now that i am reviewing this question, i find that (B) & (C) say the same thing:

Naomi: 
If interpretation accounts for more aspects of that work +  all other things being equal ----->
One critical interpretation of an artwork is superior to another

Harold: But you're leaving out an essential element: the quality of the interpretation. It's ridiculous to suggest that simply addressing more aspects of a work is a mark of superiority.

(B) mischaracterizes Naomi's argument: why? Because Harold didn't consider the  ''ALL OTHER THINGS EQUAL'' part
(C) fails to consider that Naomi may have additional criteria: Sounds about right! Harold didn't consider the ''ALL OTHER THINGS EQUAL'' part

So how do we prefer (B) over (C)?

My thinking to reject (D) was: It doesn't matter whether it was possible to ascertain the ''quality'' as long as Harold considers it important to be taken into consideration while evaluating the work of art.­

­
(C) fails to consider that Naomi may have additional criteria in mind

Incorrect. The flaw in his argument is not that he failed to consider that Naomi may have additional criteria in mind; the flaw is that he failed to consider all criteria that Naomi explicitly expressed.  She said, "all other things equal" which Harold conveniently ignored and that is the flaw in his reasoning.
You cannot expect someone to consider that the other person must have more criteria in mind which they are not putting forward. You have to take people on face value - on what they say. That is their argument. If they have other criteria but did not mention them, then they are not a part of their argument. 

Hence (C) is not correct. 

As for (D), Harold is responding to Naomi and we need to find the flaw in his response. He could have provided a whole lot more information but he did not doesn't make his current response flawed. We have to find the flaw in what he did say. 

­Hi KarishmaB
Thanks for the explanation. I think, in evaluating (C) & (D), i forgot the basic premise that i need to evaluate the argument as is, argument which is present on the screen, not one which the author has not talked about.­

Not related to the question but just a random question on the side:

Will there ever be a time when answer choice A, failing to provide a counter example, will be correct in logical flaw questions? I see it a lot as possible answers but have never seen it correct. Is it safe to eliminate that choice every time we see it in a flaw question?

Posted from my mobile device

Hi GMATGuruNY, for this reason, I thought C qualified as a valid answer:

(Harold's response) fails to consider that Naomi may have additional criteria in mind

Can you please explain.