PT130.S3.Q2 > Question

SECTION 1 · lr

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26

SECTION 2 · rc

PASSAGE 1

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7

PASSAGE 2

Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13

PASSAGE 3

Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20

PASSAGE 4

Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26 Question 27

SECTION 3 · lr

SECTION 4 · lr

The author concludes that the natural world is a work of art. She supports this by saying that all works of art are beautiful and instructive and the natural world is both beautiful and instructive.

This is the cookie-cutter flaw of mistaking sufficiency and necessity. The author treats “beautiful and instructive” as sufficient for “art.” But according to her premises, “beautiful and instructive” is necessary, not sufficient.

In other words, just because the natural world is both beautiful and instructive isn’t sufficient to conclude that it’s a work of art.

The author doesn't provide an explicit definition of the term “beautiful,” but this isn’t why her argument is flawed. Even if she did define “beautiful,” her argument would still be flawed because she assumes that all beautiful and instructive things are works of art.

The author attempts to establish a conclusion about beauty and art based on claims that are also about beauty and art. She isn’t switching between evaluative and factual statements.

The author concludes, simply because the natural world is beautiful and instructive, that the natural world is art. But “beautiful and instructive” is necessary for “art,” not sufficient. So it’s possible that the natural world is beautiful and instructive but not a work of art.

The author never assumes that only beautiful things are instructive. She just argues that art must be both beautiful and instructive.

The author only addresses the beauty and instructiveness of art and of the natural world. Whether many other things are also beautiful and instructive is irrelevant.

PrepTest 130 - Section 3 - Question 2

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action