Logical Reasoning

PT154 · S1 · Q12 Art history professor: Costa criticizes

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

  • Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one

  • Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step

  • 81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Start practicing free

Art history professor: Costa criticizes my theories about the distinction between baroque and neoclassical Austrian painting.

Conclusion

Costa's reasoning can be discounted.

Evidence (since)

His own current theories presuppose the same assignment he's criticizing me for.

Evaluate

We could get into the details of Costa said, but they are immaterial to recognizing the Famous Flaw that's happening here.

Whenever we're doing Flaw and we see a Rebuttal style argument, we know to look for these two of the 10 Famous Flaws:

1. Ad Hominem -- in which an author dismisses the view of person X because person X has some biased interest in the matter or because person X has come conflicting past behavior.

2. Unproven vs. Proven False -- in which an author concludes that X is false, since there is a lack of evidence that X is true or since someone's attempt to prove that X is true was a flawed attempt.

The conclusion here isn't saying that Costa is wrong, so we're not dealing with #2. It's saying Costa's view can be discounted / dismissed / disregarded, which is more the style of #1.

Why are we discounting Costa's critique? Because "Costa does the same thing". This is a little like getting busted by Mom for playing with matches and trying to argue that we don't deserve punishment because "Timmy did the same thing!"

Mom will say,

Similarly, we could say to this professor,

Someone who commits tax fraud should still be listened to when they accuse person X of committing tax fraud. Someone who had their license suspended for a DUI should still be listened to when they tell person X that X has had too much to drink to get behind the wheel.

Goal

Look for something saying, .

The answer can also say that the author fails to address the substantive point Costa makes, distracting us instead with irrelevant details about what Costa himself does in his theories.

12.

Which one of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the art history professor's argument?

  1. The argument confuses a necessary

    Not Necessary vs. Sufficient

    This answer describes the #1 famous flaw Necessary vs. Sufficient, in which the author presents a conditional logic premise and then illegally applies that rule in a backwards or negated fashion. There's no conditional logic premise here. The only premise is "Costa's own theories presuppose such an assignment".

    2% picked this

  2. The argument overlooks the possibility

    Not an Objection

    Since this answer starts with fails to consider / overlooks the possibility, we can ask ourselves whether the idea that follows would Weaken. Can we hurt the professor's argument by telling her that "theoreticians can hold radically different theories at different times"? No, that doesn't seem to be a relevant objection. Her premise is just about Costa's current theories, so who cares what different theories he (or other theoreticians) held at different times.

    2% picked this

  3. Correct

    The argument rejects the reasoning

    Why this is right

    We could understand this answer to be a "conflicting behavior" version of the famous Ad Hominem flaw: "My dad tells me not to smoke cigarettes because it will mess up my lungs. His reasoning can be discounted, however, since he smokes cigarettes". Obviously, Dad could be right about his advice and wrong about his behavior (do as I say, not as I do). We could otherwise understand this answer by reacting to its structure: the argument does X merely on the grounds that Y This means that X should match the conclusion and Y should match the evidence. Was the conclusion "rejecting the reasoning on which a criticism is based"? Yes: Costa's reasoning should be discounted was our conclusion, and Costa's reasoning was being used to criticize the professor's theories. Does the evidence say that "that same criticism could be applied to the theories of the person who offered the criticism"? Yes! Costa said that it was intellectually bankrupt to assign works of art to period styles, but the author's premise (since) is saying that Costa's own theories presuppose an assignment of works of art to period styles.

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

    89% picked this

  4. The argument presumes, without providing

    Not Part vs. Whole

    This answer describes the famous flaw Part vs. Whole, in which the author assumes that a trait that belongs to the Whole is therefore possessed by each Part of the whole (or vice versa). If an answer says "presumes that what is true of X must also be true of Y", then we want to see if X matches the evidence and Y matches the conclusion. Did the premise talk about "what is true of art in general"? Heavens, no. The premise says "Costa's own current theories presuppose the same assignment of works of art to period styles". We can stop reading here. The conclusion also does not match; it is not a claim about "every particular style of art". It's the claim that "Costa's reasoning can be discounted".

    4% picked this

  5. The argument presumes, without providing

    Not an Assumption

    Since this answer starts with presumes / takes for granted, we can ask ourselves whether the idea that follows would be a Necessary Assumption. Was the author assuming that "theories about one type of art cannot be compared to theories about another"? Nope. That's a crazy-extreme claim, and our author isn't saying anything related to that. She's only talking about Costa's theories. Also, to the extent that the author is saying that Costa's theories are guilty of the same "sin" that Costa accuses the author's theories of, the author seems to think that at least some theories can be compared to each other.

    4% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill
LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free