Zachary: The term “fresco” refers

Answer choices

1. A

   Correct74% picked this

   calling into question an assumption on which Zachary’s

   Why this is right

   This is pretty mean, since Stephen definitely doesn't explicitly call out any potential assumption. He basically raises an important consideration (it was common for the painter of the fresco to add another layer, before it had the final appearance they intended it to have), that allows us to see a potential objection (what if Michaelangelo did that on the frescoes in the Sistine Chapel?! Then following this advice would mean removing some of Michaelangelo's work!). And whenever we hear an objection, we can rephrase it as an assumption -- the author is assuming that objection is not the case. So we would understand this answer to be saying that Stephen is calling into question the assumption Zach's conclusion depends on, which is that "Michaelangelo intended for the Sistine Chapel to look like what it looked like when the fresco first dried" / "Michaelangelo did not add any layers after the fresco dried that were part of how he intended that fresco to appear".

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

   74%
2. B

   No Match: challenge key term2% picked this

   challenging the definition of a key term in

   The only conceivable "key term" in this argument is fresco, and Stephen certainly isn't challenging the definition of fresco as "paint that has been applied to wet plaster".

   2%
3. C

   No Conclusion Drawn7% picked this

   drawing a conclusion other than the one that

   Stephen's "But have you considered X?" response is just creating some doubt about Zach's argument. Stephen doesn't conclude anything definitive himself.

   7%
4. D

   Didn't Deny a Premise (Always Wrong)10% picked this

   denying the truth of one of the stated premises of

   Practically every Method of Response question has an answer like this that says the 2nd speaker just rejected the legitimacy of the 1st speaker's evidence. That has never been correct so far. As we know, the typical thinking game of Logical Reasoning is about accepting the stated premises but arguing with the reasoning moves or assumptions being made on the basis of them.

   10%
5. E

   Doesn't Prove Contradiction8% picked this

   demonstrating the Zachary’s conclusion is not consistent with the premises he uses

   Saying that Zach's conclusion is not consistent with his premises is saying, "Zach's conclusion contradicted his evidence." Stephen definitely hasn't accused Zach of doing something that dramatically wrong. Stephen is saying that the advice given in the conclusion may contravene the goal it's meant to achieve, but he doesn't disagree with the premise. The premise is that "later painters have added layers to the Sistine Chapel's fresco, thereby obscuring the original fresco work of Michaelangelo". Stephen isn't saying, "your conclusion contradicts the idea that later painters added layers".

   8%