PT141.S2.Q18 > Question

SECTION 1 · 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 Question 14 Question 15

PASSAGE 3

Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21

PASSAGE 4

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

SECTION 2 · 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

SECTION 3 · 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 Question 14

PASSAGE 3

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 4 · lr

The critic argues that the art historian’s conclusion is wrong. She supports this by saying that fifteenth-century European painters did not have a greater mastery of painting, because whether a painting is planimetric is irrelevant to the painter’s mastery.

This is the cookie-cutter flaw of confusing a lack of support with a false conclusion. In this flaw, the author assumes that a conclusion is false simply because the argument in support of that conclusion is weak.

Here, the critic concludes that the art historian is wrong, simply because she has weakened the art historian’s support. But it’s possible that fifteenth-century European painters did have a greater mastery of paining, even though a painting being planimetric doesn’t reflect the painter’s mastery.

The critic never mentions any “other objectionable views.” She just objects to the view that fifteenth-century painters had a greater mastery of painting. Instead of (A), the critic rejects a position merely because she has weakened the historian’s support for that position.

This is the cookie-cutter flaw of equivocation, where the author uses the same term in different ways without acknowledging the shift in meaning. The critic doesn’t make this mistake. She uses the word “mastery” consistently throughout her argument.

This is the cookie-cutter flaw of confusing necessary and sufficient conditions. The critic doesn't make this mistake. She doesn’t rely on conditional logic. Instead, she rejects the historian’s conclusion just because she weakened the historian’s support.

The critic contradicts the historian’s claim, but she doesn’t have an internal contradiction within her own argument. That is, her conclusion isn’t based on two premises that contradict each other.

The critic rejects the historian’s conclusion on the grounds that her support is weak. But it’s possible that fifteenth-century European painters did have a greater mastery of paining, even though a painting being planimetric doesn’t reflect the painter’s mastery.

PrepTest 141 - Section 2 - Question 18

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action