Art Historian: Robbins cannot pass

Answer choices

1. A

   Correct65% picked this

   In order to pass judgment on Stuart’s art, Robbins must be able either to dismiss it

   Why this is right

   This answer surprises me because it actually uses the Concession (R understands the art of S too well to dismiss it), but it matches the Evidence to Conclusion move. As written, this rule is saying Passing judgment ---requires--> Dismiss or Praise The contrapositive form would better match the argument, since the Conclusion of the argument should match the Right side of the conditional, and the conclusion was "can't pass judgment". Unable to Dismiss and → Can't Pass Judgment Unable to Praise The evidence established that Robbins can't dismiss S's art (because she understands it too well) and established that Robbins can't praise S's art (because she doesn't understand it well enough). And the conclusion is saying that Robbins can't pass judgment on S's art. If Necessary Assumption offers us a conditional answer, and we see that it matches a move the author made, we can pick it.

   Skill tested: Necessary Assumption · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   65%
2. B

   Relative vs. Absolute7% picked this

   If art can be understood well, it should be either dismissed

   Relative vs. Absolute: well (enough) Unrelated to Goal: pass judgment The argument only discussed understanding something "well enough", not "well". We want to always be wary of shifts between Relative language and Absolute language. I can be tall enough to ride a rollercoaster, but not tall. Also, the conclusion is about whether or not Robbins can pass judgment on S's art, but we've never defined a rule for when someone can / can't pass judgment on S's art. On Assumption questions, if there's New Language in the Conclusion, then almost 100% of the time the correct answer will have that New Language in it. So since this answer doesn't have "can / can't pass judgment", it's instantly unattractive.

   7%
3. C

   Bad Conclusion Match10% picked this

   In order to understand Stuart’s art, Robbins must be able to pass

   When we say in order to X, you must Y we're saying X requires Y which looks like X → Y Understanding S's art requires being able to pass judgment. Understanding → Pass Judgment The move the author made in this argument from Premise to Conclusion wasn't "If you can understand it, you can pass judgment on it". The move she made was, "If you can't praise it (or dismiss it), then you can't pass judgment on it". We want our Conclusion to be on the Right side of any conditional relationship we're dealing with. Our conclusion is "cannot pass judgment". The right side of this conditional is, "able to pass judgment". The version of this answer we want to hear is In order to pass judgments on Stuart's art, you need to understand it well enough to praise it.

   10%
4. D

   Trap4% picked this

   Stuart’s art can be neither praised

   Too Strong Unrelated to Goal: pass judgment The author wasn't saying that it's impossible to praise or dismiss Stuart's art. She was only saying that Robbins couldn't do so. Also, this doesn't have the conclusion's New Idea, "pass judgment".

   4%
5. E

   Trap13% picked this

   If Robbins understands art well, she will

   Too Strong Unrelated to Goal: pass judgment The author was never guaranteeing that in all cases of Robbins understanding art well, she ends up praising it. Also, this doesn't have the conclusion's New Idea, "pass judgment".

   13%