#8 - Robinson: Wexell says that the museum wasted its money

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Flaw in the Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (B).

This stimulus provides Wexell’s argument, and Robinson’s response. Wexell’s argument is that the
museum’s purchase of props and costumes from famous plays was wasteful, because those costumes
don’t have artistic value in any other context beyond the plays that featured them.

• Premise: The costumes that were purchased by the museum have no artistic value
  beyond their original use in the productions in which they were featured.
  
  Conclusion: The purchase was a waste of money.

Robinson disagrees, based on the fact that the props and costumes in their fragile state could not be
used in any other way. Robinson’s response breaks down as follows:

• Premise: A lot of the props and costumes are too fragile to use in a performance,
  making them useful only as displays.
  
  Conclusion: Therefore the purchase was not a waste of money.

So, Wexell feels that without any further artistic value to provide, the costumes and props that were
purchased were a waste of the museum’s money. Robinson tries to defend the purchase by pointing
out that display is the only way to get value out of them—but the fact that the costumes have only
one remaining value does not support the argument that the purchase was worthwhile.
The question that follows asks for the flaw in Robinson’s argument. Robinson’s response does not
really respond to Wexell’s argument, which deals with the items’ lack of artistic value; the fact that
they can be displayed does not give them artistic value.

Answer choice (A): The issue with Robinson’s argument is not that he lacks the evidence to make his
point—rather it is that his point is not responsive to Wexell’s argument regarding artistic value.

Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer choice; Robinson’s argument is based on the
premise that display is the items’ only remaining value, but the fact that they might have only one
remaining use does not refute Wexell’s assertion that the props and costumes have no remaining
artistic value.

Answer choice (C): This answer choice describes a Source Argument, one in which the attack is
on the source of an argument rather than on its merits. Robinson does not attack Wexell personally,
though; instead Robinson employs faulty reasoning in refuting Wexell’s point.

Answer choice (D): This choice does not reflect the argumentation found in the stimulus; Robinson
does not refute Wexell’s point on the basis of a lack of information; Robinson refutes Wexell on the
basis of a weak premise that is not responsive to Wexell’s argument.

Answer choice (E): This choice describes the classic conditional flaw of Mistaken Reversal, in which
a sufficient condition is mistaken for a necessary condition. The issue with Robinson’s argument,
however, is based not on a conditional reasoning error, but on irrelevance.

[Arindom]

Hi,

Could you please give me an example of an argument that "offers anecdotal evidence insufficient to support a general claim"?

Thanks.

- Arindom

[Nikki Siclunov]

Hi Arindom,

Thanks for your question. First, I want to make sure you understood by (B) is the correct answer choice here: Robinson did not address the rationale that Wexell used in reaching his conclusion (the museum wasted money because the items have no artistic significance), and instead brought up an entirely different point (the public wouldn't see the pieces unless they are displayed in the museum).

An anecdotal evidence insufficient to support a general claim pretty much captures all uses of anecdotal evidence out there. Such arguments are typically quite weak, as the anecdotal evidence is seldom persuasive enough to support a general conclusion. If I told you that my aunt is a 98-year old chain-smoker, and used that as evidence to conclude that smoking doesn't kill you, I'd be using anecdotal evidence that is insufficient to support a general claim.

Hope this helps!

[Arindom]

Many thanks, Nikki! All your explanations have been so clear.

[nivernova]

My understanding is that Wexell is criticizing the museum's decision to buy expensive props and costumes, implying that it should have bought cheaper ones because it would not be using them unless there is a performance. They are not worth the cost.

So I chose B based on the fact that Robinson didn't address that issue of what the museum should have done.

Am I correct?

[Jeremy Press]

Hi nivernova,

There's a little more to it than that. It's about what Wexell believes a "waste of money" is. Wexell believes the museum "wastes money" by spending it on something that has no artistic significance.

Although Robinson does seem to think the museum should've bought the items (to display them to the public), Robinson doesn't address whether those items have artistic significance or not (that's what led Wexell to say their purchase was a waste). By not addressing that specific issue of artistic significance, Robinson isn't actually responding to Wexell's point, thus he's doing nothing to really undermine that argument (which is a flaw when you're attacking someone else's argument).

[nicizle]

This question somewhat confuses me. Wexell makes the point that he believes the costumes are a waste of money because they have no artistic significance outside of a performance. Robinson refutes this by saying they have a purpose as displays, which I interpreted to be his refutation of the "no artistic significance outside of performances" point that Wexell makes.

Where am I going wrong here? I wasn't in love with any of the answer choices and went with D, but I'm struggling to understand why B is the correct answer. I was between B and D, as I quickly eliminated the others.

[Amber Thomas]

Hi Nicizle!

Answer choice B) states that Robinson's argument is vulnerable because it gives reasons that do not address the point made in Wexell's argument.

Wexell's argument states that these items have "no artistic significance outside of a performance."

Robinson says that the museum's purchasing and displaying these items is the only way to make them available to the public-- not that this gives them any artistic significance. Ultimately, it doesn't matter whether or not they are available to the public, or being used in any capacity. Wexell only says that they have no artistic significance outside of a performance, not that these items don't have any utility at all. Sure, they may be available to the public, however, this does not suddenly make them artistically significant, which is the point Wexell makes in his argument.

Had Robinson said that displaying these items in a museum for the public returns their artistic significance in some way, he would have addressed Wexel's point properly.

I hope this helps!