Q16 - In determining the authenticity of

[romanmuffin]

I don't understand how the answer is C. Can someone help me through this problem?

[timmydoeslsat]

The core of this argument can be seen as this:

Connoisseurs claim to be guided by the emotional impact a painting has on them when judging the authenticity of a painting.

Example: if painting appears to be by Rembrandt and it is expressive and emotionally touching ---> evidence work is by Rembrandt.

+

Degree to which a piece of art has an emotional impact differs radically from each person.

-------------> THEREFORE.....

Connoisseur's assessment cannot be be given credence.


We must accept the premises as true. It is the case that these connoisseurs claim they can do this act. The act of being moved by a piece of artwork, and then saying that say as a result of that whether or not the piece was authentically done by a certain artist.

An analogous situation would be this:

I am blackjack card playing wizard. I am a member of a group of these wizards that can read the facial expressions of the dealer to determine what kind of hand he has.

However, people's interpretations of reading facial expressions differs wildly.

Thus, my claim of blackjack card wizards must be not be given credence.

See how this is flawed? Just because people in general may have wild interpretations of reading facial expressions DOES NOT mean that my group of blackjack wizards have any disagreement in our group. In fact, our group can be in lockstep agreement about every facial expression!

This is how the argument in the stimulus is flawed. Just because people vary radically in their intake of an emotional impact of a work of art does not mean that this is the case in the group of connoisseurs.

Answer choice C states this idea.

Answer choices:

A) This is not a flaw. It is actually factored into his reasoning from the statement "but the degree to which an artwork has an emotional impact differs wildly from person to person."

B) The stimulus mentions one example has a hypothetical to illustrate the way these connoisseurs work. The example of Rembrandt is not the basis for the conclusion of this argument. The basis is: emotional response varies wildly from person to person...connoisseurs are guided by emotional response...therefore, connoisseurs claims of what is authentic is not likely true.

D) The stimulus does not assume that a painting's emotional impact is irrelevant to determine its authenticity. The argument tries to establish that the technique used by a certain group to determine authenticity is a technique that ranges wildly, thus the claims of authenticity claim cannot be trusted. But as we pointed out, the argument IS ASSUMING that there is wildly differing opinions AMONG the connoisseurs.

E) Assumes that Rembrandt was better at showing emotion than other painters in his works? This was just one example to show how the connoisseurs work. No implication of comparisons between Rembrandt and others. You could even negate this, since it is a necessary assumption by the phrase "presumes."

That would be...Rembrandt was not better at conveying emotions in painting than were other painters. That does not destroy the argument. Thus the argument can live without this assumption. Thus the argument does not presume (assume) it.

[jamiejames]

I guess the thing about C that made me think it was wrong (even though I chose it the first time) was that it brings in something to do with "the public," when this isn't addressed in the stimulus. Is the "person to person" part the "public" in answer choice C?

[timmydoeslsat]

I guess the thing about C that made me think it was wrong (even though I chose it the first time) was that it brings in something to do with "the public," when this isn't addressed in the stimulus. Is the "person to person" part the "public" in answer choice C?

It is.

The stimulus discusses person to person. The argument then assumes that the connoisseurs fall within that, but it does not necessarily have to occur.

[jamiejames]

I guess the thing about C that made me think it was wrong (even though I chose it the first time) was that it brings in something to do with "the public," when this isn't addressed in the stimulus. Is the "person to person" part the "public" in answer choice C?

It is.

The stimulus discusses person to person. The argument then assumes that the connoisseurs fall within that, but it does not necessarily have to occur.

tricky test writers

[bbirdwell]

Nice discussion and great analogy, timmy!

[pewals13]

The stimulus states: "the degree to which an artwork has an emotional impact differs wildly from person to person"- why would this not include connoisseurs? Shouldn't this include every homo sapien sapien existing in the universe of this question? I was thinking maybe the connoissuir's emotional responses were internally consistent and reliable yet differed by individual. Is there a general rule that can be taken from this?

[maryadkins]

I don't think there's a rule here that you need to learn. I think you're correct in your thinking and I agree. I would say that the connoisseurs may still vary in the degree of impact but all generally be in agreement, which (C) gets at better than the other answer choices. It does excuse them from the "wildly" but that statement in the stimulus, that EI differs wildly from person to person, doesn't mean every person literally differs tremendously from every other person because that would be impossible.