Self-study
Each of the elements of Girelli’s recently completed design for a university library is copied from a different one of several historic libraries. ███ ██████ ████████ ███████ ████████ ████ █████████ ██████ ████████ ██████ ███ ██████████ ███████████ █████ ██ ███ ███████ ██ ███ ██████ ██ █████████ ██ ███████ ████ ███ ██████ ██ ███ ███████ ██████ ██ ██████████ █████████
Argument Summary
Girelli's library design borrows different elements from different historic sources: a Classical Greek feature, an Islamic one, a Mogul one, a Romanesque one. None of those individual elements is original to Girelli. From this, the author concludes that the whole design isn't original either.
Anticipation
This is the part to whole fallacy: assuming that what's true of each part is automatically true of the whole.
Every note in a symphony has been played before. Every word in a poem already exists in the dictionary. The fact that no single note or word is "original" doesn't stop the symphony or the poem from being original. The originality lives in the arrangement, not in the components. Same here: Girelli could combine borrowed features in a way no historic library ever did, and that combination could itself be the original contribution.
16.
Which one of the following ██ █ █████████ █████ ████ ██ ███ █████████
a
assuming that because █████████ ██ ████ ██ ████ ██ ███ █████ ██ █ █████ ██ ██ ████ ██ ███ █████ ██████
This accurately describes the argument's part to whole fallacy. The "something true of each of the parts" is unoriginal. The argument concludes the whole design is also unoriginal.
b
generalizing illegitimately from █ ███ █████████ ██ █ ███████ ████ ██ ███ █████████ ██ ████ ████
Wrong flaw. Illegitimate generalization goes from "some instances of X have property P" to "all instances of X have property P." Here, the argument isn't generalizing from a sample of libraries to all libraries. It's reasoning about the relationship between the parts and the whole of one specific design.
c
concluding that an ███████ ████████ ██ █ ██████████ ████ ████ ███ ███ ██████████ ██ ███ █████ █████████
(C) is about reasoning over an unknown instance. Girelli's design isn't unknown. It's the thing the argument is directly about. There's no mystery case being inferred from known ones, so this doesn't fit.
d
presupposing that alternatives ████ ███ ██ ████ ██████████ ██████ ██ ████ ████████
(D) is about treating two things that can both be true as if only one can. But the argument doesn't pit two options against each other at all. It just goes from "every part is borrowed" to "the whole is borrowed."
e
deriving a factual ██████████ ████ ████████ ███████ ████ ███████ ██ █████████ ███████████
Wrong flaw. The premises are about where each design element came from (Classical Greek, Islamic, Mogul, Romanesque structures). Those are factual claims about origin, not reports of aesthetic preference. Nobody in the stimulus says they liked or disliked anything.