PT56, S2, Q21 - Tania: A good art critic is not fair

[noah]

To find the disagreement in this argument, we must first look for a topic that both persons discuss. Let's paraphrase what each person says:

Tania: A good art critic is biased (unfair). One can be fair only if one isn't interested. Are is a passion. Good art criticism must be emotional.

Monique. Are is not just a passion. The best art critics passionately engage with art. The best art critics are unbiased.

The only topic about which both speak -- and disagree-- is (B), whether a good art critic, or the criticism that critic would produce is fair biased or not.

(A) is only discussed by Monique. Tania says that art is a passion, but does not say whether it is only a passion. For example, I could say that the neighbor's dog is a hero, but this does not mean I necessarily don't also think that the dog is also a bother.
(C) is not discussed by either person. Tania does not mention what art critics should do.
(D) is not discussed by either person, though this may be an assumption we bring to the argument.
(E) is not discussed by either person.

[zhangstagangsta]

Thanks for posting this explanation.

What kept me from selecting B is the qualification, ¨good art criticism¨ because Monique talks about the best art critics. Please let me know if you can clarify this.

[noah]

Good detail-hunting!

In this case, "best" includes "good".

Analogously, let's consider the following argument:

Bob: Good ice cream never includes chips.

Yolanda: But the best ice cream in the word is chocolate chocolate chip!

Bob and Yolanda are disagreeing about whether good ice cream can include chips. Yolanda is including the example of the best to disprove Bob's conclusion, not to re-focus the discussion.

Now, take a look at this example:

Terry: Good cake is always flourless.

Candice: But the most interesting cakes are angel food's cake, which have flour.

Here, there's a discussion shift, and so the point of disagreement is hard to identify (and this example would probably be part of a question asking for the flaw in Candice's response).

Does that clear it up?