PT154 S1 Q12 ExplanationArt history professor: Costa criticizes

Answer choices, explained

1. A

   Not Necessary vs. Sufficient2% picked this

   The argument confuses a necessary condition for discounting a person’s reasoning with a sufficient condition for

   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%
2. B

   Not an Objection2% picked this

   The argument overlooks the possibility that theoreticians can hold radically different theories

   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%
3. C

   Correct89% picked this

   The argument rejects the reasoning on which a criticism is based merely on the grounds that that very criticism could be applied to theories

   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%
4. D

   Not Part vs. Whole4% picked this

   The argument presumes, without providing justification, that what is true of art in general must also be true of

   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%
5. E

   Not an Assumption4% picked this

   The argument presumes, without providing justification, that theories about one type of art cannot be compared

   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%