Our author does not ignore this; they address it in their premise. Our argument’s flaw hinges on the differentiation between how connoisseurs and laypeople emotionally experience a work of art, not just that laypeople can assess those emotions.

Our author uses Rembrandt as an example to illustrate their point, but does not use this example as the sole support for their argument like this answer choice suggests. This misses the mark of how connoisseurs differ in emotional reactions to everyone else.

Our author never confirms that connoisseurs differ in emotional reactions the same way as everyone else, and this answer choice highlights that flaw. If most connoisseurs experience the same emotions when looking at the same painting, our author’s argument would be unsupported.

The author does not mistakenly assume this. Rather, this point is their conclusion, and they do provide justification for it. However, their justification, or the support for this conclusion, is flawed; therefore, this is not the author’s flaw.

Our author never assumes this. They use Rembrandt as an example to help illustrate their point, but they never compare Rembrandt to any other painter.