Self-study
Art critic: The Woerner Journalism Award for criticism was given to Nan Paulsen for her reviews of automobiles. ████ ██ ██████████████ ███ █████████ █████ ██████ ██ █████ ███ ██████████ █████ █████████ ███████ ███████ ████ ████ █████ ████ ████ ███ ███████████ ███████ ███ █████ ██ ████ ███ ███████ ████ ███ ███ █████ ██ ███ ██ ███ ██████ █████████ ██████ █████ ███ ███████ ████ ████████ █████
Summary
The author concludes that Nan Paulsen’s reviews were not criticism, and she therefore should not have won the criticism award. She offers three main premises as support.
(1) In order to receive the award, a work should be a criticism.
(2) If one does not write about art, then they don’t reveal important cultural truths.
(3) Paulsen did not write about art.
Notable Assumptions
This argument features a classic linking assumption between 2 premises. The author is attempting to take the contrapositive of premise one by asserting that Paulsen’s work did not reveal important cultural truths, but this leaves a gap between revealing cultural truths and whether a work is a criticism. This gives us a strong prediction:
If a work does not reveal important cultural truths, then it is not a criticism.
11.
Which one of the following ███████████ ██ ██████ ████ █████ ██ ███████ ███ █████████ ██ ███ ███ ████████ █████████
a
The Woerner Journalism █████ ███ █████████ ██████ ███ ██ █████ ██ █ ██████ ███ ████████ ███████████ ███████ ██ █████ ██ ████
Wrong trigger. The premises never tell us if Paulsen tries to portray cars as works of art.
b
Reviews of objects ██████ █████████████ ██ ██████████ ██ ██ █████████ ██████ ███ ███████ ██████ █████████ ██████ █████ ███ ███████ ████ ████████ █████
(B) translates to, if a review of objects doesn’t reveal important truths, then it is not a criticism. Paulsen’s review of objects didn’t reveal important cultural truths, so (B) allows us to validly conclude it wasn’t a criticism and therefore should not have won the award.
c
Unless a review ██ ███████ ███ ███ ███████ ██ █████████ █████████ ██████ █████ ███ ████████ ████████ ████ ██████ ██████ ███ ██ ██████████ ██ ██ ██████████
Wrong trigger. Paulsen might have intended her reviews to reveal important cultural truths while still failing to do so.
d
The Woerner Journalism █████ ███ █████████ ██████ ███ ██ █████ ██ ███████ ███ ██ ███ ████████ ██████████ ██ ██ ████████
Wrong trigger. We have no clue whether Paulsen considers herself to be a critic.
e
All writing that ███████ █████████ ██████ █████ █ ███████ ██████ ██ ██████████ ██ ██ ██████████
Leads to the wrong conclusion. If the sufficient and necessary conditions were swapped, this would support our conclusion; (E), however, only lets us prove that something should be considered a criticism, not that it shouldn’t.