Donna claims to have found the museum's current exhibition of bronzes from Benin less interesting than many of the other exhibitions recently put on by the museum. █████████ ██ ███ ███ ████████ ████████ ████████ ███ █████ ██████████ ██ ████ ███████████ ████ ███ █████ ██████████ ████ ███ ██████ ███ ███ ██ ██ ██████ ██████████ ███████ █████ ████ ██ ██████
The author concludes that Donna’s subjective claim (that she enjoyed the Benin exhibition more than the others) is false. His reasoning is that it conflicts with the subjective claims made by others (critics said the Benin exhibition was the most interesting one).
The flaw in the author’s reasoning is that there’s no contradiction between two people making different subjective claims. It’s entirely possible that Donna didn’t find the Benin exhibit interesting, but the critics did. Whether something is interesting is a personal judgment, not a provable fact.
Which one of the following █████████ ████████ ██████ █████████ ████ ██ ████ ███████ ██ ███ ██████ █████████ ██ ███ ████████ ██████
Alice claims to ████ █████████ ███ ███████████ █████████ ██ ███ ███████████ ████████ ███ ████ ████ █████ ███ ████████ ██ ██ ███ ███ ███ ████ ██████████ ███████ ██████ ██████████ ████ ██ ██████
If this argument is flawed, it’s the wrong flaw. (A) is about an objective fact: whether Alice completed her assignment. By contrast, the stimulus is about a subjective claim.
Morris claims to ████ ████ ███ ██████ ████ ██ ███ ███████ ████████ █████████ ██ ███ ███ ████ ████████ ████████ ████ ████ ████ █████ ██ ████ ███ ██████ ███ ███ ██ ███ ███████ ██████ ███ ██ █████ ████████ ██████ ██████████ ████ ██ ██████
This is a valid argument, unlike the stimulus. Whether Morris saw the fire is an objective question, one for which (B) gives relevant evidence. By contrast, the flaw in the stimulus is using external evidence to evaluate a subjective claim.
Denise claims to ████ ████ ██ ███ █████ ████ ██ ██████ ███████ ███████ ████████ ███████ ████ ██ ████ ██ ███ █████ ████ ██ ██████ ███████ ████████ ██████ ██████████ ████ ██ ██████
This is the wrong flaw. (C) relies on testimony from someone else about Denise’s thoughts. By contrast, the testimony cited in the stimulus was about the critics’ own thoughts, not Donna’s thoughts.
Loren claims to ████ ███ █████ ██ ███ ████ ██ ███ ████████ ██████ ████████ █████ █████████ ██ ████████ ███ █████ ████████ █████ █████ ███ ████ ██ ███ ████████ █████ ██████ █████████ ███████ █████ ████ ██ ██████
(D) concludes that Loren’s subjective claim (that she enjoyed the taste of the fish) is false. The reasoning is that it conflicts with the subjective claims made by others (foodies who hate the taste of the fish). This is flawed, because other people’s experiences aren’t relevant to Loren’s subjective claim.
This parallels the flaw in the stimulus: relying on the critics’ subjective experiences to contradict Donna’s subjective claim.
Douglas claims to ████ ███████ ███ ███████ ████████ ██ ███ ████████ █████████ ██ ███ ██████ ████████ ███ ███████ ████████ ███ █████ █████████ ████ ███ ██████ ████ ███ ███ ███████ ████████ █████████ ██████ ██████████ ████ ██ ██████
This is a valid argument, unlike the stimulus. Whether Douglas climbed the tallest mountain in the country is an objectively answerable question. By contrast, which art exhibit Donna found most interesting is not.
Answer five questions and we'll estimate your score.
It takes about five minutes.
Take the free diagnostic