PrepTest 136

Incorrect. The conclusion is about specific props, so it's not a general claim. The evidence also isn't anecdotal—it deals with the characteristics of the props in question.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Wexell: Props from plays don't have significance outside of the performance, so the museum wasted its money in buying them.
Robinson: These props are fragile and can't be used in performances, so the museum is the only place people would see them, and therefore the museum didn't waste their money.

Answer Anticipation:
One of the prime considerations when an Errors in Reasoning question features a debate—two arguments, with the author rebutting the first—is whether the points addressed by the rebuttal actually address the points made in the counterpoint.

Here, Wexell's argument is that the props from these plays don't have artistic significance outside of the performance. In other words, putting them in a museum strips them of their artistic significance, and thus doesn't provide any value to museum-goers.

Does Robinson address this issue? Not at all. Instead, he focuses on whether the props would be able to be seen anywhere else. Even if the museum is the only place to see these props, Wexell would be fine with that—after all, he thinks they're valueless if not in a performance.

In failing to address Wexell's argument and bringing up information unrelated to it, Robinson's rebuttal is flawed, and the correct answer should highlight the "straw man" nature of it.

Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights Robinson's failure to address the issue raised by Wexell—that the props, once removed from the performance, are artistically insignificant. Robinson establishes that they can't be viewed in a performance anymore, but that doesn't address whether they have value outside of that performance.

Key Takeaway:
When an Errors in Reasoning question features a debate, with the author rebutting an opposing point, check to see if she addresses the actual points raised in that opposing point. Not often, but frequently she'll address a different point, leading to the correct answer.

Incorrect. Robinson doesn't address the substance of Wexell's argument, but he doesn't go after Wexell's character, so this answer describing an ad hominem flaw is incorrect.

Incorrect. This answer is describing an absence of evidence flaw. However, Robinson doesn't address a shortcoming in Wexell's argument, instead bringing up new information that fails to address her points, so this answer is incorrect.

Incorrect. The argument doesn't feature conditional language, so this illegal reversal answer is incorrect.