#22 - Drama critic: Audiences will enjoy Warner’s latest play, about the

[tetsuya0129]

Hi Powerscore staff,

First of all, thank you for all of the incredible great replies to my questions.

I knew the correct answer (D) does not bear upon any impact on the argument. Yet, could you please help explain why (E) can weaken the argument?

I am finding (E) to be too fallacious to be a rebuttal because it targets the arguer but not the reasoning. I am afraid that there is something wrong with my preconception.

Please kindly help.

Thanks,
Leon

[Jeremy Press]

Hi Leon,

Good question, and a subtle answer choice!

In this case, the attack on the speaker actually ends up implicating the link between the speaker's premises and conclusion, which weakens the argument. Here's the line of logic underneath answer choice E: if audiences are likely to find drama critics' reviews unreliable, they're likely to find this critic's review of Warner's latest play unreliable. And this means audiences are likely to disagree with the critic's assessment that the play has superb acting, intense chemistry, and a convincing portrayal of guilt and despair. In other words, the conclusion of the argument (that audiences are likely to enjoy the play) depends on the audience agreeing with the drama critic about the characteristics of the play. But if the audience is likely to disagree with the critic about the characteristics of the play, then there's no reason to think they'll enjoy it. This weakens the conclusion!

Let me know if that clears it up for you!

[tetsuya0129]

Thank you, Jeremy. The reasoning behind (E) is honestly so shocking to me. But I now understand the weakening rationale since, one, it attacks the critics' review but not the person and, two, when the audience usually finds the review content unreliable, then the linkage between the content and the audience's reaction to it becomes flimsy.