Logical reasoning PrepTest 141 · Section 2 · Question 18

Incorrect. There's no discussion of any views of this art historian other than on planimetric features of 15th and 16th century painters, so this answer is out of scope.

Incorrect. While the term "mastery" isn't particularly well defined in the stimulus, there's no indication that the Critic is shifting between definitions—she's consistent in her use. This answer choice is trying to get you to pick it since the art historian considers planimetry to be a mark of mastery while the Critic doesn't, it's not a flaw to point out that someone is using flawed criteria in reaching a conclusion. The Critic doesn't "illicitly" shift between the criteria for determining mastery—she explicitly states that the art historian's criterion is irrelevant to mastery.

Incorrect. The Critic doesn't establish a conditional rule to determine inadequacy, so this answer is out of scope.

Incorrect. This answer is trying to get you to pick it because of the conflicting way that planimetry is viewed by the Critic and art historian, with the former finding it irrelevant to mastery and the latter basing a conclusion about mastery on it. However, in order to be based on a contradiction, an argument must contradict itself—not an opposing point.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Some argue that 15th century painters were more masterful than 16th century painters because the former's paintings were more planimetric. But being planimetric is irrelevant to mastery, so that conclusion is wrong.

Answer Anticipation:
Whenever an argument in an Errors in Reasoning question features an opposing point, and the author concludes not that they haven't proven their point but that they're wrong (or that the opposite conclusion is true), there's a chance that the argument is committing an absence of evidence flaw—supporting the opposite conclusion merely on the fact that an opposing view hasn't made a solid argument in favor of their own conclusion.

Here, the Critic points out that the opposing point's premise is "irrelevant" to their conclusion. From that, she concludes the opposing point's conclusion isn't just unsupported but is actively wrong. There's no proof that 15th century painters weren't more masterful than those of the 16th century (which is the implication of the opposing view's conclusion being wrong), so this argument does commit an absence of evidence flaw.

Answer Explanation:
This answer choice highlights the absence of evidence flaw. The Critic rejects the art historian's argument on the basis that the argument made for it—planimetry as a means of measuring mastery—is insufficient. That might be enough to show that the conclusion could be wrong, but the Critic concludes that it is wrong, which is a step too far.

Key Takeaway:
When an argument jumps to the opposite conclusion (or states that one conclusion is "wrong," as opposed to "unsupported/unjustified"), then there's a good chance it's committing an absence of evidence flaw. Simply undermining an opposing point isn't enough to justify the opposite conclusion—evidence must be provided for that conclusion itself. Otherwise, the argument only proves the opposing point might be wrong, not that it is.