manimgoindowndown wrote:
Reviewer: The book
Art's Decline argues that European painters today lack skills that were common among European painters of preceding centuries. In this the book must be right, since its analysis of 100 paintings, 50 old and 50 contemporary, demonstrates convincingly that none of the contemporary paintings are executed as skillfully as the older paintings.
Which of the following points to the most serious logical flaw in the reviewer's argument?
(A) The paintings chosen by the book's author for analysis could be those that most support the book's thesis.
(B) There could be criteria other than the technical skill of the artist by which to evaluate a painting.
(C) The title of the book could cause readers to accept the book's thesis even before they read the analysis of the paintings that supports it.
(D) The particular methods currently used by European painters could require less artistic skill than do methods used by painters in other parts of the world.
(E) A reader who was not familiar with the language of art criticism might not be convinced by the book's analysis of the 100 paintings.
I had it between A and D
In retrospect I should have chosen A. It is just cleaner and I think the more familiar I am with a logical flaw the more it fits the bill
Premise 1. European painters lack skills that were common in the preceding century
Premise 2. In the book out of 100 paintings, 50 old, 50 new, none of the newer paintings are executed as skillfully as the older paintings.
Between 1 and 2 the flawed logic or assumption is that the book accurately
Here's where I get a little hung up.
In logical flaw questions, like strengthen and weaken we assume the answer prompts to be true, correct? I ask because I can see a wide array of answers to such logical flaw problems.
A also makes a lot more sense than B because although we can assume D to be true, the prompt tells us nothing about non-European artists. Then again the prompt doesn't tell us the book talks only about European artists, why could D not legitimately point out that these artists could possibly be non-European and hence the error ie because Euro artists are less skilled than world artists ->why we can't conclude that Euro artists between contemporary and old are not more or less skilled from the book;
Book's argument - European painters today are less skilful than preceding centuries' European painters.
Analyses of 50 paintings of each show that none of the contemporary paintings are executed as skilfully as the older paintings.
Flaw in the argument?
Because 100 paintings show that contemporary paintings are not executed as skilfully as the older paintings, can we say that painters today are not as skilful? No. What if the painters selected from yesteryears were the skilled ones and the contemporary painters selected are the not skilled ones just to prove the point? We don't know how the two groups were selected. What if there was bias in the selection?
(A) The paintings chosen by the book's author for analysis could be those that most support the book's thesis.
Correct. The sample could be biased. Then the analysis would not be valid.
(B) There could be criteria other than the technical skill of the artist by which to evaluate a painting.
A painting could be evaluated on the basis of 10 different criteria.
(C) The title of the book could cause readers to accept the book's thesis even before they read the analysis of the paintings that supports it.
That doesn't make you question the analysis/logic of the book. Even if the title colours the reader's opinion in the beginning, the analysis could be all on point and the argument could be valid.
(D) The particular methods currently used by European painters could require less artistic skill than do methods used by painters in other parts of the world.
Other parts of the world comparison is irrelevant.
(E) A reader who was not familiar with the language of art criticism might not be convinced by the book's analysis of the 100 paintings.
Irrelevant whether a reader would be convinced. The point is whether the analysis is valid.
Answer (A)
I have a similar query as to Why B is wrong? Is it because it brings outside information?
B weaken the conclusion, say if works in the other 9 criteria of the painting are better than that of the old artists, then it weakens the conclusion.
Even this option supports the bias mentioned. What if the author deliberately included this criteria to make contemporary artists look bad.
Thanks.
close
08 Mar 2013, 12:13
18%
(01:51)
wrong 
