PT157 S2 Q12 ExplanationArt student: Great works of art

Answer choices, explained

1. A

   Circular Reasoning9% picked this

   One of the premises used to support the argument’s conclusion assumes the truth

   Circular reasoning occurs when a premise is essentially a restatement of the conclusion — the argument assumes what it is trying to prove. That is not happening here. The premise that great art evokes passionate responses is not the same as the conclusion that Reilly's art is great. The premise about Reilly's work evoking emotional responses is also not a restatement of the conclusion. These are distinct claims. The argument's problem is that it reverses the conditional, not that it assumes its own conclusion.

   9%
2. B

   Correct82% picked this

   The argument treats a condition that is necessary for having a certain quality as if it must also be

   Why this is right

   This precisely describes the argument's flaw. The first premise establishes that evoking passionate responses is a necessary condition for being great art — all great art has this quality. The argument then treats this necessary condition as if it were also sufficient — as if having this quality guarantees greatness. But many things that are not great art could evoke passionate responses. Provocative, disturbing, or even terrible art can elicit intense emotions. The argument assumes that because Reilly's art satisfies a necessary condition for greatness, it must therefore be great. This is the formal fallacy of affirming the consequent, equivalently described as confusing necessary and sufficient conditions.

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

   82%
3. C

   Sampling3% picked this

   The argument misapplies a general claim about the members of a class to an atypical

   This answer suggests the argument misapplies a general claim to an atypical instance. But there is no reason to believe Reilly's work is atypical of the class being discussed. The argument applies the claim "great art evokes passion" to Reilly's work, which does evoke passion. The problem is not that Reilly's work is an unusual case that does not fit the general claim — it is that the argument reverses the direction of the conditional. Even if Reilly's work were perfectly typical, the argument would still be flawed.

   3%
4. D

   Sampling3% picked this

   The argument contains a generalization derived from an insufficient number

   This answer describes a hasty generalization — drawing a broad conclusion from too few instances. The argument is not making a generalization at all. It is making a specific claim about one artist's work (Reilly's art is great). There is no indication that the argument uses an insufficient number of Reilly's works or an insufficient number of viewer reactions. The flaw is structural — reversing a conditional — not statistical.

   3%
5. E

   Bad Evidence Match3% picked this

   The argument draws a conclusion expressing a value judgment from premises that do not involve

   This answer claims the argument draws a value judgment from non-value premises. But the first premise is itself a value statement: "great works of art evoke passionate responses" contains the value-laden term "great." The conclusion ("his art is great") and the premise both involve the concept of artistic quality. So the argument does not lack value-laden premises — it has one. The flaw is not about moving from factual premises to value conclusions; it is about reversing the direction of a conditional relationship within those value claims.

   3%