PT112 · S1 · Q21 Kostman’s original painting of Rosati

As soon as we see that this is about painting, we should be assuming it's almost definitely wrong (correct answers on Analogy or Parallel will almost never re-use the same topic). This also isn't an argument. It's just one complex, nested-conditional claim: paint an ugly scene and not distorted → paint an ugly picture representation of that scene

It's questionable whether we call this an argument, either, because we could just interpret it again as a nested conditional. But if we play along and act like the "If" condition is a premise, and the "Then" condition is the conclusion, then we get a pretty valid argument. Premise -- child's eyes resemble her mother's Premise -- the mother's eyes are brown Conclusion -- the child's eyes must also be brown There's nothing flawed about that logic, unless we want to split hairs that "eyes could resemble each other without necessarily being the same color". In either case, we wouldn't be replicating the original flaw: if X's rendering of Y has trait A, then a reproduction of X's rendering of Y will also have trait A.

The original argument's premise was that K's original was not a very accurate rendering of Rosati. We would expect, given this answer choice talking about one person imitating another, that we'd find a matching premise like, "Jo's imitation of Layne was not a very good imitation". (we could then make a matching conclusion like, "Thus Bob's will do a poor job imitating Jo's imitation.") But we don't have a premise that looks like "Jo's imitation of Layne was not good". In fact, that's our conclusion. Our premises say - Jo imitated Layne - Jo is different from Layne The original argument did not have two premises. And the original argument had a concept ("not very accurate") that carried through from premise to conclusion. This argument doesn't have a concept from the evidence that carries through. That would sound more like, "Jo is different from Layne. Thus, Jo's impression of Obama will be different from Layne's impression of Obama."

This argument tries to go from some things that were true of this first novel to a conclusion about his second. Does it recycle some trait? No. The first novel won a prestigious literary prize, so an analogous conclusion to the original argument could have been something like, "Thus, the movie that will be made based on this novel will win a prestigious cinema prize". Instead, this goes from "first one won a prize" to "second one will be enthralling", which is a term shift for sure, but it's not the same flaw of trying to carryover the same trait from one to the other. This argument also has two premises (2nd novel is similar to 1st / 1st novel won a prize), whereas the original argument only had one premise.