- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 651
- Joined: Oct 19, 2022
- Thu Oct 17, 2024 11:48 am
#109970
Hi Mo,
The flaw in Answer C would really be an error of division, often referred to as a whole-to-part flaw. In this case, the fact that a child's eyes resemble the mother's eyes in general/overall/on the whole doesn't mean that they resemble each aspect or feature of the mother's eyes (such as color). It may be possible that the child's eyes resemble the mother's eyes in other ways (such as shape), but are different colors.
The flaw in the stimulus is not an error of division/whole-to-part flaw. Instead, it is mistakenly attributing a characteristic of one thing (the inaccuracy of Kostman's painting in regard to its subject, the person Rosati) to a second thing (the inaccuracy of your reproduction of Kostman's painting in regard to Kostman's painting of Rosati).
In other words, if a reproduction of something perfectly captures the thing that it is supposed to reproduce (including any flaws in the original) that does not mean that the reproduction itself is flawed as a reproduction. In fact, the more accurate the reproduction, the more accurately it would capture the same flaws in the original. So a perfect reproduction of an inaccurate painting would be considered an accurate reproduction of an inaccurate painting.
In Answer A parallels this flaw. The fact that George's speech has flaws (half-truths and misquotes) has no bearing on the accuracy (i.e. the sound quality) of the recording. If the sound quality is very good and one can clearly hear George's speech, the fact that speech has flaws doesn't diminish the sound quality/accuracy of the recording as a recording of the speech.
The flaw in Answer C would really be an error of division, often referred to as a whole-to-part flaw. In this case, the fact that a child's eyes resemble the mother's eyes in general/overall/on the whole doesn't mean that they resemble each aspect or feature of the mother's eyes (such as color). It may be possible that the child's eyes resemble the mother's eyes in other ways (such as shape), but are different colors.
The flaw in the stimulus is not an error of division/whole-to-part flaw. Instead, it is mistakenly attributing a characteristic of one thing (the inaccuracy of Kostman's painting in regard to its subject, the person Rosati) to a second thing (the inaccuracy of your reproduction of Kostman's painting in regard to Kostman's painting of Rosati).
In other words, if a reproduction of something perfectly captures the thing that it is supposed to reproduce (including any flaws in the original) that does not mean that the reproduction itself is flawed as a reproduction. In fact, the more accurate the reproduction, the more accurately it would capture the same flaws in the original. So a perfect reproduction of an inaccurate painting would be considered an accurate reproduction of an inaccurate painting.
In Answer A parallels this flaw. The fact that George's speech has flaws (half-truths and misquotes) has no bearing on the accuracy (i.e. the sound quality) of the recording. If the sound quality is very good and one can clearly hear George's speech, the fact that speech has flaws doesn't diminish the sound quality/accuracy of the recording as a recording of the speech.