#18 - Critic: An art historian argues that because

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

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

Here, the critic addresses an argument made by an art historian comparing the mastery of painting held by fifteenth and sixteenth-century painters. To make this comparison, the art historian points to the use of planimetric techniques. Since the fifteenth-century paintings were more planimetric than the sixteenth-century paintings, the historian concludes that fifteenth-century painters had a greater mastery of painting than those of the sixteenth-century.

It is not surprising to see that the critic disagrees with the art historian, as we could predict based on the critic’s use of the “some people say...” rhetorical device. In fact, the critic concludes that the historian’s conclusion is wrong, meaning that fifteenth-century painters did not have a greater mastery of painting than did sixteenth-century painters. In support of this conclusion, the critic provides just one premise, that the planimetric nature of a painting is irrelevant to the assessment of a painter’s mastery.

The critic’s argument is flawed and can be restated as: “the art historian has not provided relevant evidence to support the conclusion, so the art historian’s conclusion is false.” In other words, the critic says that since evidence about the planimetric features of a painting is irrelevant to determining a painter’s mastery, then the historian’s conclusion based on that irrelevant evidence is factually false. Assuming that the critic is correct in saying that the evidence of planimetric features was irrelevant, the most that the critic could conclude is that the art historian’s conclusion is without support, not that it is factually false.

The question stem identifies this as a Flaw in the Reasoning question. Our prephrase is that the correct answer choice will describe the critic’s error in treating the historian’s reliance on irrelevant evidence as proof that the historian’s conclusion is factually false.

Answer choice (A): The critic made no mention of the historian’s “other views,” and so this answer choice is incorrect.

Answer choice (B): Here, the answer choice refers to the ambiguous usage of a key term. However, the critic’s use of the term “mastery” remained consistent throughout the stimulus.

Answer choice (C): This answer choice refers to a flaw in conditional reasoning. Since the argument was not conditional, this choice is incorrect as well.

Answer choice (D): In this case, the answer choice refers to the critic’s argument being internally contradictory. However, the critic’s argument consisted of just one premise, and that premise did not contradict the conclusion.

Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer choice because it describes the critic’s error in treating the art historian’s reliance on irrelevant evidence as proof that the historian’s conclusion was factually false.

[mokkyukkyu]

Why is E a flaw? In the argument it says "irrelevant", so does it mean showing "irrelevant" is not enough to conclude what the argument concludes?
I don't see the problem in the argument nor how E points out the flaw...
(I eliminated others to arrive at this answer though)

Thank you

[Adam Tyson]

Good job eliminating the other answer choices! That means that you picked the correct answer because it was the best of the bunch, the one you disliked the least, and that's sufficient on this test. Understanding is great, but striving to always understand can often get in the way of the goal here.

Now, as to what's going on in this argument, here's what happened:

1) Art historian says 15th Century painters were better because they were more planimetric
2) Critic says being more planimetric is irrelevant
3) Critic concludes that Art historian was wrong, 15th Century painters weren't better

In telling us that being more planimetric is irrelevant, our critic weakened the argument of the art historian. With only the one premise to support the art historian's conclusion, and that premise now being called into question, the conclusion stands alone without support. But does that mean the conclusion is wrong? Nope - 15th Century painters could still be better, based on some other criteria that we know nothing about. The critic did not disprove the art historian, but merely weakened his argument. His flaw was in believing that he had disproved the conclusion - he took his case too far.

Imagine this argument:

1) I had a dream that the Panthers would win the Super Bowl next year
2) Therefore, the Panthers will win the Super Bowl next year

Now, you counter my argument by pointing out that dreams prove nothing, that there is no science to support the idea that predictive dreams actually exist, and that in any case I have never had a predictive dream that ever came true. Based on this, could you claim with absolute certainty, that the Panthers will not win the Super Bowl next year? Of course not, because weakening my argument by showing that my premises are irrelevant falls far short of showing the conclusion itself to be false.

Take another look and see if that adds up for you. Also, Go Panthers!

[ShannonOh22]

I've been looking at this question for far too long, and am still confused by answer choice E.

The stimulus uses a critic as the speaker, who says an art historian argues that one group of artists is superior to another group, but that the criterion used to arrive at this conclusion is "irrelevant to painter's mastery", and therefore the conclusion is "wrong".

First of all, the word "irrelevant" is subjective in this case. It seems the critic simply disagrees with the art historian about what constitutes an appropriate quality to use when determining "painter's mastery"...not that he is saying the "planimetric" commentary is factually wrong. There is no comment about being "factually wrong" anywhere in the stimulus.

Also, I have no knowledge of planimetric painting and its relevance to being considered "masterful" at the craft. There could be certain standard to which all criticism of art should be held...I don't have a clue what this is. Therefore, how am I to make any kind of a call on the critic's statement? Maybe planimetrics IS relevant in the art critic world...and therefore the critic's entire argument is also rendered "irrelevant"...the point is, it's too subjective to make a determination.

I didn't think any of the answer choices looked great, but this one definitely didn't jump out because it's so general...

Couldn't an argument be made for A because the critic finds the art historian's comments "objectionable"?

For answer choice B, one might reasonably say that the general group of 15th century painters having a "greater mastery of painting" is different in actual meaning from a singular "painter's mastery" (as it appears in the final sentence)...

I'm not trying to buck the system and fight with the LSAT writers, but this question really has me stumped...I don't know how I would pick out the right answer if I saw this Q on the actual test...please help!!

[Paul Marsh]

Hi Shannon! So one type of Flaw type that pops up every now and again is Errors in the Use of Evidence (if you have the PowerScore LSAT Course books, this is covered in Lesson 7). I think the Flaw is nicely summed up by this sentence from the book: "Just because no evidence proving a position has been introduced does not mean that the position is false." In other words, calling into question the reasoning of an argument doesn't mean that the conclusion of that argument is automatically false.

Let's try an example:

Pete says that Georgia is smart because she is good at Logic Games. But I saw Georgia get a Logic Game question wrong. So Georgia is actually not smart.

The narrator in that example attacks Pete's argument by introducing a new premise that Georgia got a Logic Game question wrong. That new premise from our narrator does indeed weaken Pete's argument, but it doesn't mean that the logical opposite of his conclusion must therefore be true. Georgia missing a question might lessen Pete's reasoning, but that doesn't mean she isn't smart (plenty of smart people get Logic Game questions wrong!) So our narrator's conclusion (that Georgia is not smart) is therefore flawed due to Errors in the Use of Evidence. To sum up: attacking an argument doesn't make the opposite of that argument's conclusion true.

Here, that is exactly what the Critic is trying to do. The critic attacks the art historian's evidence, and without providing any other justification goes on to declare that the opposite of his conclusion is true (that 15th century painters did not have a greater mastery of painters than 16th century painters). While the critic has successfully weakened the art historian's argument, the critic hasn't proved that 15th century painters didn't have greater mastery of painting. Those 15th century painters simply could have had greater mastery of painting for some other reason. Whenever you see the narrator of a stimulus declare that a conclusion is totally incorrect simply because the argument's reasoning was suspect, watch out! It's an Error in the Use of Evidence Flaw. Hope that helps!

[lsatstudying11]

Hello!

I can see why D is wrong, and I ruled it out because the critic did not provide two claims to make her argument. However, couldn't you say that her argument is somewhat contradictory because she concludes that 15th c. painters were not better masters but bases this solely on the idea that the planimetric metric is irrelevant. In other words, she seems to first say that planimetrics are irrelevant to the question of mastery, and then from this, makes a kind of evaluation about mastery? Would this be a kind of contradiction in the argument's logic? Couldn't I respond to her and say--if planimetrics are irrelevant, then why are you using it to support your claim about the (lack of) mastery of the 15th c painters? Typically I would characterize this issue, as E does, as the author rejecting a claim simply because the the evidence used in support of that is irrelevant or wrong, but could we also say there is a kind of internal contradiction in the critic's argument? Thanks for your help!

[Robert Carroll]

l,

I have two objections to your opinions about answer choice (D). First, note that the answer choice says that the author "bases" the conclusion on two claims that "contradict each other." You're pointing out that the premise potentially contradicts the conclusion. So if any things contradict each other, it's not two premises like answer choice (D) is saying.

Second, if we consider why it appears that the author is contradicting him or herself, we have to say something like "The author thinks that the degree to which a painting is planimetric is irrelevant to mastery, yet also thinks that a fact about the planimetric nature of a painting is able to support a conclusion about the painting's mastery." But the "fact" the author is saying is true about the planimetric nature of a painting is that it is irrelevant to mastery, so that anyone who uses that fact alone has no basis on which to judge mastery. So far, there's no contradiction. The author then erroneously believes that this absence of evidence is evidence of absence. I don't see a contradiction appearing yet, but I do see what answer choice (E) says! So to explain why the argument has the semblance of a contradiction, we have to explain its misuse of evidence in that way that answer choice (E) mentions. There's no real contradiction; answer choice (E) is the only mistake.

Robert Carroll