- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8948
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Fri Jan 21, 2011 12:00 am
#23135
Complete Question Explanation
Flaw in the reasoning. The correct answer choice is (E)
The argument in this stimulus concludes that music has a temporal dimension, while paintings do not. This is supported by the fact that music is presented as a set sequence of sounds, whereas paintings are presented as a whole to the viewer, and the viewer has no set path to follow with his eyes. The obvious retort to this argument is "What about the path that the viewer creates for himself with his eyes when he views the painting? How is viewing the painting first from the corners, then inwards not a temporal sequence?" As such, even though the viewer creates his own path while viewing the painting, the path that he creates supplies the temporal dimension. The only difference, therefore, is who creates the path—with music, it is the composer; with paintings, it is the viewer. Nevertheless, in both cases, there remains a temporal dimension.
Answer choice (A) It mentions the passage of time as a red herring. However, remember what the argument is about—the absence of a set sequence or path in which the art form is presented. Immersion in the experience of a painting so that one loses track of the passage of time has nothing to do with the rest of the stimulus.
Answer choice (B) The stimulus is mainly dealing with paintings, and only uses music as an example of an art form that is allegedly distinct from paintings in that it has a temporal dimension. The flaw in the argument has nothing to do with the example of music, but rather its discussion of paintings.
Answer choice (C) This is an example of an answer choice that at first glance seems profound, but upon reflection, really does not say anything useful at all. What are these aspects common to both music and painting that the argument fails to bring out? There may be many, and indeed, can be anything that music and paintings have in common, but even if brought out, such would not remedy the flaw in the argument.
Answer choice (D) It essentially criticizes the argument for relying too much on the metaphor of "reading," so much so that the metaphor itself assumes the conclusion to be established. However, using the metaphor of reading in no way causes the argument to assume the truth of the conclusion. Rather, the argument still focuses on the lack of a set sequence in which things are presented in a painting to conclude that paintings lack a temporal dimension.
Answer choice (E) is the correct answer choice. It rephrases our objection in more eloquent terms. Hence, when viewing a painting, there exists some path that the eye takes, and therefore, there exists a temporal dimension in viewing a painting as the eye moves along this path.
Flaw in the reasoning. The correct answer choice is (E)
The argument in this stimulus concludes that music has a temporal dimension, while paintings do not. This is supported by the fact that music is presented as a set sequence of sounds, whereas paintings are presented as a whole to the viewer, and the viewer has no set path to follow with his eyes. The obvious retort to this argument is "What about the path that the viewer creates for himself with his eyes when he views the painting? How is viewing the painting first from the corners, then inwards not a temporal sequence?" As such, even though the viewer creates his own path while viewing the painting, the path that he creates supplies the temporal dimension. The only difference, therefore, is who creates the path—with music, it is the composer; with paintings, it is the viewer. Nevertheless, in both cases, there remains a temporal dimension.
Answer choice (A) It mentions the passage of time as a red herring. However, remember what the argument is about—the absence of a set sequence or path in which the art form is presented. Immersion in the experience of a painting so that one loses track of the passage of time has nothing to do with the rest of the stimulus.
Answer choice (B) The stimulus is mainly dealing with paintings, and only uses music as an example of an art form that is allegedly distinct from paintings in that it has a temporal dimension. The flaw in the argument has nothing to do with the example of music, but rather its discussion of paintings.
Answer choice (C) This is an example of an answer choice that at first glance seems profound, but upon reflection, really does not say anything useful at all. What are these aspects common to both music and painting that the argument fails to bring out? There may be many, and indeed, can be anything that music and paintings have in common, but even if brought out, such would not remedy the flaw in the argument.
Answer choice (D) It essentially criticizes the argument for relying too much on the metaphor of "reading," so much so that the metaphor itself assumes the conclusion to be established. However, using the metaphor of reading in no way causes the argument to assume the truth of the conclusion. Rather, the argument still focuses on the lack of a set sequence in which things are presented in a painting to conclude that paintings lack a temporal dimension.
Answer choice (E) is the correct answer choice. It rephrases our objection in more eloquent terms. Hence, when viewing a painting, there exists some path that the eye takes, and therefore, there exists a temporal dimension in viewing a painting as the eye moves along this path.
When test-makers refer to argumentation, they include both the premises and the conclusion in that reference. The conclusion is almost always the key, especially when attacking Flaw questions. Here, the flaw is the unwarranted assumption that to follow a path, the eye needs to follow a particular path:
Particular path