Logical reasoning PrepTest 154 · Section 1 · Question 12

Incorrect. The Professor's argument doesn't establish a conditional rule for discounting reasoning, and one isn't implied (having a theory that also falls into one's criticism is neither sufficient nor necessary to dismiss that criticism).

Incorrect. The stimulus specifically notes that the criticism is current ("criticizes my theories"), and Costa's theories are current ("his own current theories"), so this answer doesn't apply to the stimulus.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Costa's theories are guilty of the same things he criticizes my theories for, so his criticism can be dismissed.

Answer Anticipation:
The content of Costa's criticism is complex and hard to understand. Luckily—as you can see from our Summary—you don't need to understand it, since it's a part of the opposing point. Focusing just on the Professor's argument, which starts at the pivot, we can see that the argument is much more straightforward. That complex criticism? Whatever it is, the Professor contends it can be used to describe Costa's theories, and that's used to dismiss the criticism. However, that doesn't address the substance of the criticism—the criticism isn't dismissed because of a shortcoming in it, but rather in a shortcoming of the person making it. That's an ad hominem attack similar to an accusation of hypocrisy.

Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights that the criticism isn't dismissed because of the substance of it, but rather because it could be applied to the person making the criticism. That describes the flaw in the argument, where the Professor doesn't address the substance of the criticism.

Key Takeaway:
Ad hominem attacks don't always involve name-calling—sometimes, there are more subtle attacks on the person making the argument. Here, showing that someone's argument could be turned back on them is an ad hominem attack since it ignores the underlying argument itself.

Incorrect. The argument doesn't commit a whole-to-part jump from art to particular art. The criticism is based on a principle underlying art analysis, but first, principles can be applied to specific situations, and second, the Professor doesn't rely on that principle being true (in fact, she seems to disagree with it since it undermines her theories).

Incorrect. The Professor relies on Costa's theory used to criticize her theories being equally applicable to Costa's theories on a different type of art (opera), so, if anything, the argument presumes the opposite.