PT37 S4 Q16 "Flaw Q"

FLAguyNSeoul

Hi all, I'm trying to better understand Flaw-Descriptive Weakening Questions and this one stumped me. After listening to the explanation, I better understand why AC C is correct. However, I am wondering if AC C would still hold up if the wording was changed to "neglects the possibility that there might be widespread disagreement among connoisseurs.." instead of "neglects the possibility that there may be widespread agreement among connoisseurs.."

Any thoughts/clarification/tips would be greatly appreciated on this question?

deleted account

I don't think that would work, although I am open to other discussion. It might still be the best choice, but I don't think the argument neglects the possibility of disagreement. It only neglects the possibility of agreement. The last sentence (degree to which .. .emotional impact ... difference wildly) directly addresses the possibility that people disagree over this -- wildly even!

nye8870

If there were wide spread *disagreement* among the connoisseurs then the argument would be strengthened...we shouldn't give credence to their opinion b/c they cannot agree on the "certain way" in which it was moving.

FLAguyNSeoul

Thanks josephellengar for the input...I see where you are coming from. Yet, from my understanding, this argument doesn't hinge on "person to person" disagreeing (premise) but on the connoisseurs. Am I mistaken in my reasoning?

Thank you nye8870 the input. It definitely now makes more sense.

DumbHollywoodActor

For me, the flaw is that the argument equates the "person to person" with the "connoisseurs". But they might not be equals. Among connoisseurs, there might not be any wildly differing emotional impact to a painting. So your other option, that there might be widespread disagreement among connoisseurs, really strengthens the argument because it reinforces that equating.

FLAguyNSeoul

Thank you DumbHollywoodActor for the clarification.