If the recording now playing on

Answer choices

1. A

   Bad Premise Match8% picked this

   The museum is reported as having acquired a painting “by Malvina Hoffman, an artist who died in 1966. ” But Hoffman was a sculptor,

   This feels pretty close at first, until we read some other options. We want to know that a claim is impossible, leaving us with two possible reasons for why it's wrong. Then we want a premise to rule out one of those options and a conclusion that settles on the other. To make this match the original argument more, we'd need something like, If the museum really acquired a painting by Hoffman, then [a sculptor who never made paintings would have made a painting]. Since we know the museum did acquire a painting, it must not be by Hoffman. The last two ideas could have also been: Since we know the acquisition was by Hoffman, it must not have been a painting.

   8%
2. B

   Weak Premise Match20% picked this

   This painting titled La Toilette is Berthe Morisot’s La Toilette only if a painting can be in two museums at the same time. Since

   The first sentence could be fine, but the "Since" premise is off. It's spelling out the impossibility of the outcome in the conditional. But the original argument didn't do that. It didn't say "Since Louis Armstrong couldn't have played his best jazz while dead, the announcer must have gotten the date wrong." The "Since" premise is supposed to be ruling out one way of resolving the error.

   20%
3. C

   Correct52% picked this

   Only if a twentieth-century Mexican artist painted in Japan during the seventeenth century can this work both be “by Frida Kahlo” as labeled and

   Why this is right

   "Only if" = necessary, right side condition Prem1: If this work is really the 17th century Japanese landscape it seems to be and designed by Frida Kahlo as it is labeled, then a 20th century Mexican artist painted in Japan during the 17th century. Prem2: Since [this is a 17th century Japanese landscape] Conc: The label is wrong (it's not by Frida) This gives a conditional with an impossible outcome (telling us the trigger can't be true). Then there's a premise ruling out one way of explaining how the trigger could be wrong, and a conclusion that provides the other way of explaining how the trigger could be wrong.

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

   52%
4. D

   Bad Premise Match3% picked this

   Unless Käthe Kollwitz was both a sculptor and a printmaker, the volunteer museum guide is wrong in his attribution of this sculpture. Since what

   This doesn't have a conditional with an impossible outcome. It's definitely possible that Kollwitz was both a sculptor and a printmaker. The fact that she's known for her prints doesn't resolve that question in any way.

   3%
5. E

   Weak Premise Match17% picked this

   If this painting is a portrait done in acrylic, it cannot be by Elisabeth Vigée-Lebrun, since acrylic paint was developed only after her death.

   This doesn't provide a conditional with an impossible outcome. It's highly possible that this painting wasn't done by Elisabeth V.L. Thus, there's no validity to saying the painting must not be acrylic. It could be an acrylic portrait that wasn't done by Elisabeth.

   17%