Logical reasoning PrepTest 102 · Section 3 · Question 23

Flawed

Errors in Reasoning Questions

Museum director - To raise funds, she sold some paintings she considered inferior. Critics: You sold first-rate pieces and violated your duty to future generations! Follow-up - The paintings sold in a stagnant art market for 2-3x what the museum sold them for Conclusion - The Critics were right

We should be reading the stimulus of all Errors in Reasoning questions with an eye toward identifying elements that are associated with specific flaws. However, this stimulus has so many viewpoints - the museum director, the critics, the author - that we should start by narrowing down the argument to what the Author says, since that’s the argument we’re looking for a flaw in. So let’s start with her conclusion - the Critics’ evaluation was correct. What did the Critics argue? That the Director sold first-rate pieces and violated her duty as a trustee of art for future generations. That’s a two-part conclusion, so we should look at the premises and see how they connect with both pieces. What are the author’s premises? Here, there’s really only one premise - that the art sold by the director went on to be sold in a stagnant art market for 2-3x what she sold them for. How is that connected to the two parts of the conclusion? Well, it doesn’t really speak to the part about being a trustee, so the author doesn’t seem to really be talking about that. Instead, the sale price seems to speak to the quality of the works - that they’re “first-rate pieces.” Does an increase in sale price guarantee that certain pieces are first-rate? Not necessarily - there could be other reasons that they increased in price. The artist could have died, or they could have been discovered to be historically important (instead of quality art). Any answer that points out that there are other potential reasons for the increase in price - other than a recognition of their quality - will highlight a flaw in this argument.