Critical Reasoning

Source: GMATPrep

Reviewer: The book Art's Decline argues that European painters today lack skills that were common among European painters of preceding centuries. In this the book must be right, since its analysis of 100 paintings, 50 old and 50 contemporary, demonstrates convincingly that none of the contemporary paintings are executed as skillfully as the older paintings.

Which of the following points to the most serious logical flaw in the reviewer's argument?

A: The paintings chosen by the book's author for analysis could be those that most support the book's thesis.
B: There could be criteria other than the technical skill of the artist by which to evaluate a painting.
C: The title of the book could cause readers to accept the book's thesis even before they read the analysis of the paintings that supports it.
D: The particular methods currently used by European painters could require less artistic skill than do methods used by painters in other parts of the world.
E: A reader who was not familiar with the language of art criticism might not be convinced by the book's analysis of the 100 paintings.

OA: A

I need explanation.

IMO A


B : irrelevant. point is not evaluation of painting, argument is saying only about skill, other factors are irrelevant
C : out of scope
D : method does not matter. finally argument is comparing only 'skills' , no matter what methods are used
E : convincing doesn't matter

A : it is showing a reverse possibility, so wekning the argument,

I think the answer is D.

The argument is that today's European painters lack skills that previous European painters had & this is supported by the analysis of the 50 new paintings which aren't executed as skillfully as the older paintings.

The premise is that since these skills are not exhibited/visible through the paintings, it implies a lack of knowledge of the skills themselves amongst the painters.

So a statement which says something like contemporary paintings don't place that much emphasis on 'artistic skill' per se should refute this. Hence, D (though I have to admit the part about painters in the other part of the world makes me wonder if I'm right)

What's the answer?

paes' reasoning is correct.

________

This is a flaw question, in which we must identify the author's error (flaw) in reasoning.

The author concludes that the book "must" be right that current European painters lack skills that their predecessors possessed in abundance. His evidence is that 50 current paintings vs 50 historic paintings suggest that that is the case.

In short: the flaw is that the sample in the evidence--100 paintings--may do a poor job of genuinely representing the groups to which the conclusion is being applied (ie, all current and all historic European painters). The conclusion groups are far broader and more ambitious than the narrow sample of 100 paintings, which were selected by the bookwriter himself. Thus, choice A is correct.

Choose A.

_________

Other choices:

B: There could be criteria other than the technical skill of the artist by which to evaluate a painting.

Who cares? The author is arguing that current European painters lack certain skills that the past painters had. The author isn't arguing that current painters aren't as good as the historic ones (for, perhaps current European painters have certain skills that their predecessors lacked). This choice is outside the scope.

C: The title of the book could cause readers to accept the book's thesis even before they read the analysis of the paintings that supports it.

The title of the book has nothing to do with the author's error in reasoning.

D: The particular methods currently used by European painters could require less artistic skill than do methods used by painters in other parts of the world.

First of all, the argument was about artistic skills not methods. Second, whether current European painters' methods require less skill than the methods employed by artists in other parts of the world is irrelvant to whether current European painters lack skills that the historic European painters had. In fact, this is a common wrong answer type: irrelevant comparison.

E: A reader who was not familiar with the language of art criticism might not be convinced by the book's analysis of the 100 paintings.

The disctinction between familiar vs unfamiliar readers has nothing to do with the author's error in reasoning.

___________

Takeaway: this is a common flaw type known as representativeness.

This question brings up "analysis" and numbers...

Pattern recognition: whenever an argument brings up an experiment, poll, survey, research, analysis, you should always ask:

"what is the group in the evidence?" that is, "what is the group being studied, experimented on, researched, etc?"

and

"what is the group in the conclusion?" that is "what is the group to which the conclusion is being applied?"

Almost always the group in the evidence will be somehow misrepresentative of the group to which the conclusion is being applied. In some cases, the group in the evidence will be a mere subset of that in the conclusion; or, the evidence group may not have been randomly selected; or there will be some other problem with it--making it misrepresentative.

Has to be A I believe this is from OG...

Good Explanation

Thanks Testluv

Testluv,

quick question on C: this is my thought process -

If the book calls attention on people already with the same idea (writer's idea of decline in skills), then the argument put up by the writer is flawed, as it's no longer universal. And since the writer's logic is supported by the reviewer, then the "title" issue defeats the angle of the reviewer.

If I'm buying a book that says Rock is dead!, I may not or I may be already "sold" on that idea, and that's why I'll make that purchase, wheher or not the analysis on which the conclusion of Rock being dead in the book matches mine or not.

I would really appreciate your feedback on this.
Thank you!

Christian

Testluv wrote:paes' reasoning is correct.

________

This is a flaw question, in which we must identify the author's error (flaw) in reasoning.

The author concludes that the book "must" be right that current European painters lack skills that their predecessors possessed in abundance. His evidence is that 50 current paintings vs 50 historic paintings suggest that that is the case.

In short: the flaw is that the sample in the evidence--100 paintings--may do a poor job of genuinely representing the groups to which the conclusion is being applied (ie, all current and all historic European painters). The conclusion groups are far broader and more ambitious than the narrow sample of 100 paintings, which were selected by the bookwriter himself. Thus, choice A is correct.

Choose A.

_________

Other choices:

B: There could be criteria other than the technical skill of the artist by which to evaluate a painting.

Who cares? The author is arguing that current European painters lack certain skills that the past painters had. The author isn't arguing that current painters aren't as good as the historic ones (for, perhaps current European painters have certain skills that their predecessors lacked). This choice is outside the scope.

C: The title of the book could cause readers to accept the book's thesis even before they read the analysis of the paintings that supports it.

The title of the book has nothing to do with the author's error in reasoning.

D: The particular methods currently used by European painters could require less artistic skill than do methods used by painters in other parts of the world.

First of all, the argument was about artistic skills not methods. Second, whether current European painters' methods require less skill than the methods employed by artists in other parts of the world is irrelvant to whether current European painters lack skills that the historic European painters had. In fact, this is a common wrong answer type: irrelevant comparison.

E: A reader who was not familiar with the language of art criticism might not be convinced by the book's analysis of the 100 paintings.

The disctinction between familiar vs unfamiliar readers has nothing to do with the author's error in reasoning.

___________

Takeaway: this is a common flaw type known as representativeness.

This question brings up "analysis" and numbers...

Pattern recognition: whenever an argument brings up an experiment, poll, survey, research, analysis, you should always ask:

"what is the group in the evidence?" that is, "what is the group being studied, experimented on, researched, etc?"

and

"what is the group in the conclusion?" that is "what is the group to which the conclusion is being applied?"

Almost always the group in the evidence will be somehow misrepresentative of the group to which the conclusion is being applied. In some cases, the group in the evidence will be a mere subset of that in the conclusion; or, the evidence group may not have been randomly selected; or there will be some other problem with it--making it misrepresentative.

Testluv,

quick question on C: this is my thought process -

If the book calls attention on people already with the same idea (writer's idea of decline in skills), then the argument put up by the writer is flawed, as it's no longer universal. And since the writer's logic is supported by the reviewer, then the "title" issue defeats the angle of the reviewer.

If I'm buying a book that says Rock is dead!, I may not or I may be already "sold" on that idea, and that's why I'll make that purchase, wheher or not the analysis on which the conclusion of Rock being dead in the book matches mine or not.

I would really appreciate your feedback on this.
Thank you!

Christian

Hi Christian,

Choice C may be a good answer to a weaken question in which we are provided with new information, and we have to see which fact renders the conclusion less likely to be true.

But in a flaw question, we are asked what is already wrong with the arguer's reasoning. And since the arguer's reasoning had nothing to do with the title of the book, the title of the book cannot have anything do with the flaw in the arguer's reasoning. Let me know whether you have any follow-up questions.

I was about to reply that both information are included in the passage, so I don't feel it's new information that C brings in.......BUT......I noticed that you said "we are asked what is already wrong with the arguer's reasoning". The books title mentioned it's background information and not the reasoning. The reasoning is ANALYSIS of 100 paintings => support thesis of LACK of SKILLS.
Being this the argument and being here mentioned the paintings....and being this a Logic flaw questions, then A it's the correct answer.

Is my thought process correct Testluv?

Grazie!

Christian

Testluv wrote:

Testluv,

quick question on C: this is my thought process -

If the book calls attention on people already with the same idea (writer's idea of decline in skills), then the argument put up by the writer is flawed, as it's no longer universal. And since the writer's logic is supported by the reviewer, then the "title" issue defeats the angle of the reviewer.

If I'm buying a book that says Rock is dead!, I may not or I may be already "sold" on that idea, and that's why I'll make that purchase, wheher or not the analysis on which the conclusion of Rock being dead in the book matches mine or not.

I would really appreciate your feedback on this.
Thank you!

Christian

Hi Christian,

Choice C may be a good answer to a weaken question in which we are provided with new information, and we have to see which fact renders the conclusion less likely to be true.

But in a flaw question, we are asked what is already wrong with the arguer's reasoning. And since the arguer's reasoning had nothing to do with the title of the book, the title of the book cannot have anything do with the flaw in the arguer's reasoning. Let me know whether you have any follow-up questions.

The books title mentioned it's background information and not the reasoning. The reasoning is ANALYSIS of 100 paintings => support thesis of LACK of SKILLS.

Exactly! So, if you see how I paraphrased the argument in my first post in this thread, you will see that the title of the book does not come in.

It must be A.