#12 - Art student: Great works of art evoke passionate

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

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

Answer choice (A):

Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer choice.

Answer choice (C):

Answer choice (D):

Answer choice (E):

This explanation is still in progress. Please post any questions below!

[winter19]

I picked up two flaws in this stimulus: (1) the obvious mistaken reversal and (2) the student goes from talking about a general group-- those who view [art] to a specific group -- those in art circles

Frustratingly, both were present in the answer choices. (B) described the mistaken reversal so I picked it, but (C) described the second flaw. A "member of a class" are those who view art whereas a "atypical instance of that class" would be those who are in art circles, who can be expected to have a different reaction than a general viewer of art.

How should I have chosen when it seemed like two flaws were being described by the answer choices?

[Dana D]

Hey Winter,

The flaw described in answer choice (C) is not present in the stimulus because there are not two classes being described here. "Those who view art" is not a separate class, the stimulus is saying anyone who lays eyes on these types of great works of art will have a passionate response. In this way, the author is setting up the viewing of the art as a sufficient condition which will will be accompanied by a passionate response. Being in a art circle might be a class, but more likely in this context it indicates that these are people who look at art (and therefore meet the sufficient condition of viewing the art).

But I see how this could be a close call between answer choices, so to address your second question of what to do when you think you see two flaws: try addressing the flaw and see if the stimulus still has issues. So here, let's correct the flaw in answer choice (C) and re-write the stimulus to say "Thus, since it is well known by those who view art that the provocative work..."

If we make the two groups the same - both times talking about people who view art - is the flaw in the stimulus now rectified?

No.

We still have the issue identified in answer choice (B) - the flaw of mistaking a necesary condition as sufficient. Therefore, the actual flaw in this stimulus can't be coming from answer choice (C), it's coming from answer choice (B).

hope that helps!

[winter19]

Addressing one flaw to see if the stimulus still has issues is so helpful, I don't know why I didn't think of it in the moment. Thank you so much

[tmanmw2]

Got this right on process of elimination but am having trouble with the causal/conditional logic. "Evoke" seems causal here (the great art causes the feelings) and elsewhere on this forum (viewtopic.php?t=32114) we have stated that if we have an A causes B argument (without hedging language), then A is the ONLY cause of B. Based on this I have several questions. First, since this causal language shows up in the premise, can we assume that the author is stating great art is the ONLY cause of the feelings?

Second, if it is true that great art is the ONLY cause of the feelings based on the premise, how is the argument flawed? I was close to choosing A on this basis. It seems as though feelings--->great art, making choice B not a flaw.

Thank you!

[Jeff Wren]

Hi tmanmw,

First, there are times when conditional reasoning and causal reasoning overlap on the LSAT. For example, the statement, "the only thing that could have caused A is B" expresses both causal and conditional reasoning. I agree that one can think of great works of art as causing passionate responses.

However, the first sentence of the stimulus also expresses conditional reasoning. A broad statement such as "great works of art" do something means "all great works of art" rather than some great works of art. You could add the word "all" before "great works of art" and the meaning would not change. What this sentence is indicating is a quality of all great works of art. If something is a great work of art, then it will evoke passionate responses in the viewer.

As a general rule, when a statement can be interpreted causally or conditionally, I usually recommend focusing on the conditional reasoning. Conditional reasoning is more absolute and it is generally easier to spot whether the reasoning is good or flawed (i.e. Mistaken Reversals, Mistaken Negations), especially with diagramming.

It appears that you may have gotten the wrong idea about causal reasoning having only one cause. When we say that "if we have an A causes B argument (without hedging language), then A is the ONLY cause of B," we are referring to what the author of the argument is assuming, not what is in fact actually true. People making absolute causal arguments (specifically drawing causal conclusions) are incorrectly assuming that the cause that they cite is the one and only cause of the effect, but the fact that there can actually be other causes is exactly why causal arguments like this are inherently flawed. This is exactly why an answer that provides an alternate cause for the effect weakens a causal argument.

You do not want to assume that if one thing causes another, then that cause is the only thing that could cause the effect. For example, imagine the following argument:

Eating ice cream always makes me happy. I am happy right now. Therefore, I must be eating ice cream right now.

This argument contains a Mistaken Reversal just like the argument in the stimulus. In causal terms, even though eating ice cream causes me to be happy, that does not mean that it is the only thing that causes me to be happy. That is neither stated nor implied in the argument.

[tmanmw2]

Thank you so much Jeff! That really cleared things up for me!