- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8948
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Wed Nov 08, 2017 5:52 pm
#41443
Complete Question Explanation
Flaw in the Reasoning. The correct answer choice is C.
The art history professor's argument is a classic example of the "Source Argument" (i.e. ad hominem), in which the professor rejects a position, not on grounds related to the substance of that argument, but rather simply because the person advocating the position has behaved hypocritically with respect to that argument.
The professor rejects Costa's criticism of the professor's theories about different period styles of Austrian painting, a criticism Costa based on the lack of unique characteristics of any particular period's style. Rather than discuss whether there are or are not such unique characteristics, or whether or not such lack of unique characteristics is relevant to distinguishing a period's style, the art history professor premises the rejection of Costa on the fact that Costa has exhibited hypocrisy by presupposing "such an assignment" in Costa's own theories about French opera. Thus, we need to find an answer choice that describes a Source Argument flaw.
Answer Choice (A): There is no stated (or assumed) "necessary condition" for discounting a person's reasoning in the art history professor's argument, thus there is no possibility of confusing such a condition for a sufficient condition.
Answer Choice (B): The possibility stated in answer choice B has no effect on the art history professor's argument. Even if there's a possibility that theoreticians in some circumstances can hold radically different positions, that wouldn't shed any light on whether in this particular circumstance the deviation between Costa's criticism and his own practice gives reason to reject his criticism.
Answer Choice (C): This is the correct answer choice. This answer describes, though in a somewhat more subtle way than usual, the Source Argument flaw we prephrased. The art history professor does in fact reject the reasoning on which a criticism is based, because the professor says "[h]is reasoning can be discounted." The art history professor also bases this rejection merely on a statement about how Costa violated that reasoning in one of his own theories, which means Costa's very criticism could be applied to his own theories.
Answer Choice (D): The argument does not presume anything about art in general, nor does it apply such a presumption to "every particular type of art."
Answer Choice (E): Answer choice E is a subtle form of opposite answer. The art history professor assumes that Costa's theories about French opera can in fact provide a point of comparison for rejecting his reasoning about theories of Austrian painting. In other words, the art history professor thinks that "what's good for the goose (Costa, in theorizing about French opera) must be good enough for the gander (the art history professor, in theorizing about Austrian painting)." So, the presumption is that theories about one type of art can be compared to theories about another type of art.
Flaw in the Reasoning. The correct answer choice is C.
The art history professor's argument is a classic example of the "Source Argument" (i.e. ad hominem), in which the professor rejects a position, not on grounds related to the substance of that argument, but rather simply because the person advocating the position has behaved hypocritically with respect to that argument.
The professor rejects Costa's criticism of the professor's theories about different period styles of Austrian painting, a criticism Costa based on the lack of unique characteristics of any particular period's style. Rather than discuss whether there are or are not such unique characteristics, or whether or not such lack of unique characteristics is relevant to distinguishing a period's style, the art history professor premises the rejection of Costa on the fact that Costa has exhibited hypocrisy by presupposing "such an assignment" in Costa's own theories about French opera. Thus, we need to find an answer choice that describes a Source Argument flaw.
Answer Choice (A): There is no stated (or assumed) "necessary condition" for discounting a person's reasoning in the art history professor's argument, thus there is no possibility of confusing such a condition for a sufficient condition.
Answer Choice (B): The possibility stated in answer choice B has no effect on the art history professor's argument. Even if there's a possibility that theoreticians in some circumstances can hold radically different positions, that wouldn't shed any light on whether in this particular circumstance the deviation between Costa's criticism and his own practice gives reason to reject his criticism.
Answer Choice (C): This is the correct answer choice. This answer describes, though in a somewhat more subtle way than usual, the Source Argument flaw we prephrased. The art history professor does in fact reject the reasoning on which a criticism is based, because the professor says "[h]is reasoning can be discounted." The art history professor also bases this rejection merely on a statement about how Costa violated that reasoning in one of his own theories, which means Costa's very criticism could be applied to his own theories.
Answer Choice (D): The argument does not presume anything about art in general, nor does it apply such a presumption to "every particular type of art."
Answer Choice (E): Answer choice E is a subtle form of opposite answer. The art history professor assumes that Costa's theories about French opera can in fact provide a point of comparison for rejecting his reasoning about theories of Austrian painting. In other words, the art history professor thinks that "what's good for the goose (Costa, in theorizing about French opera) must be good enough for the gander (the art history professor, in theorizing about Austrian painting)." So, the presumption is that theories about one type of art can be compared to theories about another type of art.
