#8 - Lopez: Our university is not committed to liberal arts,

[Administrator]

Please post your questions below! Thank you!

[ameliakate]

Could someone explain why E is more appropriate than C? I see now that Warrington wasn't mounting a direct challenge, but I can see how Warrington's argument discredits Lopez's conclusion.

[Jay Donnell]

Hi ameliakate!

This is an excellent question to ask, as this concept shows up in quite a few Method of Reasoning questions across the history of the exam. It boils down to the difference between attacking a conclusion versus the reasoning behind an argument.

For example, let's say that I want you to believe the following conclusion, in honor of the Academy Awards happening tonight:

Green Book is an incredible movie.

Now, I personally agree with this statement, and as it just won Best Picture, it's a totally reasonable claim. However, quality of the film aside, what if this was the reasoning used in the argument:

Green Book is an incredible movie, evidenced by the cutting edge digital effects used during the fight scenes between the giant robots and the talking gorillas.

Now, here is where I have an issue with the reasoning of this argument. There are zero giant robots or talking gorillas in the film, so this is obviously terrible reasoning. However, as much as I hate the argument, I can do so while still agreeing with the conclusion. It is an incredible movie, just not for that reason.

This process is really common in MOR questions. A second speaker can dispute the reasoning offered by the first, but can do so while undermining the connection between the premise and the conclusion without directly attacking the conclusion.

The conclusion offered by Lopez was that the university was not committed to liberal arts. That idea wasn't attacked by Warrington, who instead questioned the concept that closing the classics department equates to no longer studying classical antiquity. Maybe Warrington is a staunch defender of the university's commitment to the liberal arts, or he/she could even completely agree that the university lacks such commitment, but believes so for completely different reasons.

To further clarify one last point, in your post you mentioned that "Warrington's argument discredits Lopez's conclusion." I would say that Warrington clearly discredited the connection between Lopez's premise and conclusion. They attack the reasoning and leave Lopez with a currently unsupported conclusion, but not one that was proven false or even 'directly attacked.'

I hope that helps, be on the lookout for this situation to show up again!

And, go see Green Book

[ameliakate]

That was really helpful - Thank you!

[Jay Donnell]

Very happy to help, keep those good questions coming!

[lounalola]

I got this question correct but I also liked B. Why is E a better answer?

[Jeff Wren]

Hi lounalola,

This Method of Reasoning question is asking for how Warrington responds to Lopez's argument.

Answer B states that "the reasoning in Lopez's argument rests on an illicit appeal to tradition." Warrington does not claim this at all.

What Answer B describes would be if Lopez's argument was only relying on tradition and nothing else. For example, if Lopez had argued "our university has always had a classics department, therefore it always should continue to have one no matter what." However, that is not quite what Lopez argues and not what Warrington claims.

While Lopez does mention the study of classical antiquity having a tradition going back to the Renaissance, this is not the part of the argument that Warrington attacks. Warrington actually agrees with Lopez that the study of classical works is essential to the liberal arts.

The way that Warrington attacks Lopez's argument is by pointing out that universities can still offer classical studies even without having a separate classics department because classical studies can be taught in other departments. This fact is the "consideration" mentioned in Answer E, which best captures the reasoning of Warrington's argument.