Q18 - An art historian argues that because fifteenth-century

[mshinners]

Question Type:
ID the Flaw

Stimulus Breakdown:
The reason an art historian gives for his position is wrong, therefore his conclusion is wrong.

Answer Anticipation:
There's confusing language in this argument (planimetrics?), but it's clear the Critic thinks the historian is wrong. As soon as I see that conclusion, I want to know if the Critic is going to attack a premise, the conclusion, or an assumption.

Looking at the premise for the Critic's argument, I see she bases it on calling the connection between the historian's premise and conclusion into quest. That definitely undermines the argument.

However, it doesn't kill it! If a bad reason is given for believing something, that doesn't refute the conclusion. It'd be like saying, "You think the Earth is round because oranges are round. Oranges being round has nothing to do with the shape of the Earth; therefore, the Earth is flat!"

This argument is an example of the Unproven vs. Untrue flaw. The Critic successfully weakens the historian's conclusion by showing that his premise is "irrelevant" to his conclusion. This proves that 15th-century painters might not have had a greater mastery than the next generation. However, since the Critic concludes not that the historian's conclusion might be wrong but that it is wrong, the Unproven vs. Untrue flaw has reared its ugly head.

Correct answer:
(E)

Answer choice analysis:
(A) Wrong flaw (Ad Hominem). First, the historian doesn't have any objectionable views, just incorrect views. That language is too strong. Second, the historian only has one view here - everything he says is related to the relative merits of these two artists.

(B) Wrong flaw (Equivocation). This argument sticks with talking about painting ability when referring to mastery; there's no shift.

(C) Wrong flaw (Illegal Reversal). There is no necessary condition for the argument's being inadequate here. While the argument does treat a reason as being sufficient to rule that argument out, it doesn't treat anything as necessary. I wouldn't expect a Conditional Logic flaw answer in an argument like this one that lacks conditional language, but if there were to be a correct answer in that vein, it'd be the reverse of this answer.

(D) Wrong flaw (Self-Contradiction). This answer choice is often given but rarely correct. Contradictions are also generally a more-obvious flaw than others (though they can still be tricky). This argument is trying to trick you into picking this answer by having contradictory statements between what the historian says and what the Critic states. However, this flaw requires the contradictory statements to be made by the same viewpoint!

(E) Bingo! This answer is one of the common ways to state the Unproven vs. Untrue flaw. The Critic rejects the historian's position ("You're wrong!") based on an inadequate argument ("The stuff you talked about is irrelevant!"). The historian's conclusion could be correct for other reasons.

Takeaway/Pattern:
If the author of an argument goes past stating that an opposing view is unsupported to stating that it's wrong, there's a good chance the Unproven vs. Untrue flaw is rearing its ugly head.

#officialexplanation

[jonfarahi]

Can one of the LSAT geeks-and I mean that in admiration- please explain to me why answer choice A is incorrect? I can see why E is correct but answer choice A also explains a flaw in my opinion.

Thank you in advance!

[jones.mchandler]

Hey--not a geek, but I will provide my take on this one.

Conclusion: 15th century painters did NOT have a greater mastery of painting than did 16th century painters

Premises: Proponents argue that because 15th century paintings were more planimetric than 16th century paintings, 15th century painters had a greater mastery of painting.

The critic responds to this reasoning by arguing that the degree to which a painting is planimetric is irrelevant to the painter's mastery.

So what's the flaw here? Well, the critic is responding to an argument by suggesting that the reason certain proponents suggest that 15th century painters possessed a greater mastery of painting is simply irrelevant to an evaluation of painter's mastery. That is as if someone said that Michael Jordan has the best jump shot of all time because of his follow through, and I responded by saying no, he doesn't have the best jump shot of all time because that consideration is irrelevant to an evaluation of the mastery of a jump shot.

Who's to say that it's irrelevant? Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. We simply don't know if it is or is not irrelevant.

Now, as to your question about A. A states that the argument "rejects a position simply because the proponent of the position has other objectionable views." A is incorrect because of the "other objectionable views" part. The critic is only discussing one issue, and that is whether planimetricity (?) is relevant to an evaluation of the mastery of a painter.

[judaydaday]

I'd like to add something.

I believe (E) is correct because its similar to the no evidence -> truth/false conclusion flaw type.

The conclusion here is saying that the 15th century painters did NOT have a greater master than 16th century painters. Just because there is no support does that mean the claim is WRONG, this is kind of jumping logical step. The only conclusion you can make with insufficient evidence/support is that the conclusion is QUESTIONABLE.

[aharonw1]

Can someone explain the language of Answer Choice C? I couldn't decipher it during the test, but felt it was along the lines of, taking an argument that is necessary to disprove an argument, to mean that it sufficiently disproves the argument.

Similar to answer E...

[maryadkins]

This is definitely a classic case of no evidence --> wrong.

But that's a fallacy.

Just because there isn't yet good evidence in favor of something doesn't make it wrong.

Here, just because planimetry is irrelevant to how good a painter one is, and therefore your planimetric level doesn't make you better, Fifteenth Century painters still could have actually been better than Sixteenth Century painters for another reason. Maybe they were better because they weren't all wrapped up in modern 16th Century technology! Who knows?

(C) is a different kind of fallacy. (C) describes reversed logic, like if you're told in a premise, "If my argument is wrong, I cry," and the conclusion is, "I cried, so my argument must have been wrong." This isn't what it's doing. Be wary of answer choices on flaw questions that just throw in the terms "necessary" and "sufficient." Unless there is logic reversal, it will not be right.

The other answer choices aren't even in play here.

[phoebster21]

I'd like to add something.

I believe (E) is correct because its similar to the no evidence -> truth/false conclusion flaw type.

The conclusion here is saying that the 15th century painters did NOT have a greater master than 16th century painters. Just because there is no support does that mean the claim is WRONG, this is kind of jumping logical step. The only conclusion you can make with insufficient evidence/support is that the conclusion is QUESTIONABLE.

Even IF we accept what the critic suggests (that plainmetricy is NOT relevant to a judgment of aristry) that does not mean that we can also accept that the 15th century painters were bad and/or were not as masterful as the 16th century painters.

To put it this way, lets say you had two dance teams that you were comparing.
One critic goes, "well dance team X had GREAT costumes, better than dance team Y's costumes, so therefore dance team X was the better dance team. " the author says, "well hey now, the costumes are entirely irrelevant in determining the quality of the dance team, therefore dance team Y must be the better dance team."...

Okay, so we can accept the author's claim that costumes are irrelevant to a dance team's performance (how would what you're wearing make you a better performer??) BUT can we go as far as to assume that just because this ONE factor has been ruled out that SUDDENLY dance team Y is better?

What if dance team X, with all it's shiny outfits and sparkly shoes, was composed of professional, super good dancers while the dance team Y (those with plain jane, boring costumes) were all people with two left feet who could only do the robot? Would you still conclude that dance team Y is a better team?

Perhaps the critic would have been more wise to say "oh, dance team X is good because they have better moves and more rhythm and can actually dance in synchrony" instead of commenting on something like their outfits.

All the author of this passage is able to really say is "okay, well you haven't given me a good reason for believing that 15th century is better, so we really don't know." But instead, he goes, "well 15th century is DEFINITELY not better."

[snoopy]

I debated between A and E and chose A. Back then, I had interpreted "other objectionable views" as the art historian's view that 15th century painters were more planimetric and thus had greater mastery. This art historian's view, I thought, was objectionable to the critic's view, for the critic believed that planimetricity was irrelevant to mastery.

However, I'm seeing now that the critic isn't rejecting the art historian's view because of his/her opposing views. That's an ad hominem flaw. The critic didn't make an ad hominem flaw. The critic is rejecting the position that planimetricity is relevant to mastery. Thus, the critic is rejecting a position because s/he thinks that the art historian's view isn't adequate. E says this.