Self-study
Art student: Support Great works of art evoke passionate responses in those who view them. █████ █████ ██ ██ ████ █████ ██ ███ ███████ ████ ███ ███████████ ████ ██ ████████ ███████ ███████ ██████ ███████ █████████ █████████ █████████ ██ █████ ███ ████ █████ ███ ███ ██ ██████
Summarize Argument
If an artwork is great, then it provokes passionate response when viewed. Reilly’s artwork provokes passionate responses when viewed, therefore his work is great
Identify and Describe Flaw
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of confusing sufficient and necessary conditions. The author treats having strong responses as sufficient for greatness, but strong responses are necessary, not sufficient. So confirming that there are strong responses doesn’t allow us to infer anything about greatness (other than that this particular necessary condition hasn’t been failed).
Also, there is a potential issue with conflating the terms “passionate” and “intensely emotional.” These might be considered to be interchangeable but, as always, stay wary.
12.
Which one of the following ████ ██████████ █████████ █ ████ ██ ███ ██████████ ██████████
a
One of the ████████ ████ ██ ███████ ███ ██████████ ██████████ ███████ ███ █████ ██ ████ ███████████
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of circular reasoning. The author doesn’t make this mistake; the conditional statement that is premise (”Great works of art evoke...”) doesn’t assume the conclusion (Reilly’s artwork is great) to be true.
b
The argument treats █ █████████ ████ ██ █████████ ███ ██████ █ ███████ ███████ ██ ██ ██ ████ ████ ██ ██████████ ███ ██████ ████ ████████
This matches our flaw identification/prediction. The author treats having strong responses, which is necessary for greatness, as also being sufficient for greatness. This is invalid logic.
c
The argument misapplies █ ███████ █████ █████ ███ ███████ ██ █ █████ ██ ██ ████████ ████████ ██ ████ ██████
There is no atypical instance. Applying the conditional rule of artwork greatness to Reilly’s work is appropriate, but the author did it incorrectly by confusing sufficient and necessary conditions.
d
The argument contains █ ██████████████ ███████ ████ ██ ████████████ ██████ ██ ██████████
We have no reason to believe that anything was derived from an insufficient number of instances. When choosing an answer choice for a Flaw question, we need evidence that the reasoning involves a particular assumption/lack of credibility/etc. There’s no evidence that there was an insufficient number of instances.
e
The argument draws █ ██████████ ██████████ █ █████ ████████ ████ ████████ ████ ██ ███ ███████ ██████████ █████ ███████
Both the support and conclusion contain statements involving value judgment (greatness). (E) is descriptively inaccurate.