Self-paced
Support It is characteristic of great artists generally, and of great writers in particular, to have a discerning view of the basic social and political arrangements of the society in which they live. ██████████ ███ ███████ █ ██████ ███ ███ ███ ████ ██████ ███ ████ ██ ██ ██████████ ███ █████ ██████ ███ █████████ ████████████ ██ █████ ████████
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that, the better one is at writing, the better one will be at observing social and political arrangements. His reasoning is that great writers tend to have a good understanding of such arrangements.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author’s reasoning is flawed, because his only support is that great writers have at least a certain threshold of observational skill. That doesn’t tell us that variation in observation skill beyond that is directly tied to variation in writing skill.
An analogous argument would be: “All great writers sleep at least 4 hours at night. Therefore, the better you are at writing, the more hours per night you sleep.”
13.
Which one of the following ████ ██████████ █████████ █ ████ ██ ███ █████████ ██████
a
It assumes, without █████████ ██████████████ ████ ███████ ██ █ █████ ████ ██ ████ ██ █ ██████ █████ ███████ ███ ██ ███ ███████████████ █████████ ██ ███████ ██ ███ ██████ ██████
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of confusing a part with the whole. It’s not applicable here, because the author doesn’t erroneously switch between a larger and a smaller group.
b
It assumes, without █████████ ██████████████ ████ ███████ █████████ ██ █████████ ███ ████ ██ ████ ██████ ██ ███ █████
The author’s failure isn’t that he erroneously expands a correlation beyond what he established. It’s that he doesn’t establish a direct correlation between discernment and writing skill in the first place.
c
It assumes, without █████████ ██████████████ ████ █████ ███████ ████ █████████ ███████ ██ ███ ████ ███████ ████ ███████ ███████ ██ █████████
This can’t be the flaw, because the author’s argument never suggests that artists lack insight outside of politics.
d
It assumes, without █████████ ██████████████ ████ ████ █████ ███████████ ███ ████ ██████████ ██████████ ██ █████ ██████████
This reverses what the argument is saying. The author claims that greatness leads to discerning criticism, not that discerning criticism requires greatness to be made. Also, the argument is about writers specifically, not great individuals generically.
e
It assumes, without █████████ ██████████████ ████ ███████ ██████ ███ ████ ███ ███████ ████ ██ ████ █ ██████ ████████ █████ ███ ████ ████ ██ ███ █████ ███████ ████ ████ ████ ██ ███ ███████
The author assumes that, because people who are great at writing are discerning critics, the better you are at writing, the better you’ll be at criticism. But we only know that great writers have reached a threshold, not that there’s generally a direct correlation.