Philosopher: For some kinds of art, there is truth to the adage that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. █ ████████ ██ █████████ ████ ███████ ███ ██████ ██ ██████ ████████ █████ ███ ██████ ███████ ██ ███████ ████ ██████ █████████████ █████ ███ ██ █████ █████████ █████████ ███ ███████████ ███ ████████ █████ ██ █ ████████ ██ █ ██████████
The philosopher argues that there are no objective rules for judging the artistic value of paintings and sculptures because people disagree about whether a particular artwork has artistic value. The argument assumes that this disagreement occurs because people use different standards to evaluate art (e.g. prioritizing technical skill vs. emotional impact), and then concludes that no objective standard exists.
The philosopher mistakenly assumes that if people disagree about something, then no objective standard for judging it exists: the philosopher assumes that people disagree on artistic value because they’re all using different standards to judge the art. But it’s possible that there are objective standards, and that some people are using the same objective standards—some just apply those standards differently or incorrectly.
The philosopher's reasoning is flawed ███████ ██
relies exclusively on ██ ███ █████ █████ █████ ███ ███ ████ ████████████
The argument mentions an “adage,” or old saying ("beauty is in the eye of the beholder"), but it doesn’t exclusively rely on it to prove its point. The conclusion also—in fact, mainly—relies on the second sentence. So, this answer doesn’t accurately describe the argument.
ignores the fact ████ █████ ███ █████ █████ ██ ████ ████ ██ ██████████ ███ ███████ ████ ███ ████ ████████ ████████████
The argument’s conclusion is limited to whether objective standards exist for paintings and sculptures, so it’s OK that the author didn’t consider whether people also disagree about other types of art. So, this choice is descriptively accurate, but it doesn’t identify a flaw.
fails to consider ███████ █████ ███ █████ █████████ █████████ ███ ██████████ █████████ ████ ████ ██ █████
The argument’s conclusion is limited to whether objective standards exist for paintings and sculptures, so it’s OK that the author didn’t consider whether objective standards exist for other types of art. So, this choice is descriptively accurate, but it doesn’t identify a flaw.
fails to consider ████ ██████ ███ ████████ █████ ███ ████████ █████ ██ █ █████ ████████ ███ ██ ███████████ ████████ ███ ████ ██████████ ████████ ██ ████ ████████
The argument assumes that people must disagree because they must have different standards for good art (i.e., there is no “objective” standard). But it’s possible that everyone has the same standard for good art, and some are just bad at knowing if art meets that standard.
fails to consider ████ ███ ███████████ ███████ ███ ███████████ █████ █████ ██ ███ ███ ██ ███████ ██ ██████ ████ █████████
This isn’t a flaw because the conclusion doesn’t depend on whether the disagreement comes from non-experts. It relies on the premise that people disagree (which we accept) and the unstated premise that disagreement means different standards (which we can challenge as flawed).
Answer five questions and we'll estimate your score.
It takes about five minutes.
Take the free diagnostic