PrepTest 149

Incorrect. This answer describes one type of circular reasoning flaw. However, while the argument does assume that a specific one of two contradictory statements is the false one, it doesn't start out from assuming that it's false. Instead, it uses the contradiction to point out that there is something wrong with the argument—that's valid evidence to raise in a rebuttal. It's flawed in that it assumes one statement is wrong over another, not in assuming from the outset that the argument's conclusion is false.

Incorrect. Expressing information and conveying information (and the main purpose of poems, for that matter) aren't mentioned and are out of scope.

Incorrect. The argument solely concerns itself with whether a paraphrase can be accurate, not whether paraphrases are useful.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Literary Critics: A poem can't be accurately summarized
Rebuttal: Critics treat their summaries as accurate
Conclusion Ð Poems can be accurately summarized

Answer Anticipation:
This argument points out a common error in reasoning in an opposing view—that view contradicts itself. On the one hand, Literary Critics believe poems can't be accurately paraphrased. On the other hand, they believe that their paraphrases of poems are accurate. From this contradiction, the argument concludes that the Critics are wrong and poems can be accurately summarized.

Pointing out a contradiction in another argument and concluding that the opposing conclusion is false has two flaws, one that's repeated often and one that's unique to a couple situations.

The first is the flaw that we should always consider when an argument reaches the polar opposite conclusion of an opposing point—an absence of evidence flaw. In this flaw, an argument reasons that a conclusion is false because an argument in favor of it is flawed. Here, in pointing out the self-contradiction, the argument establishes that the Critics' argument is flawed. That only proves that their conclusion might be wrong, not that it is wrong ("is false.").

The second flaw can be present in any argument with a self-contradiction (and in another situation we'll circle back to). When an argument contradicts itself, it means at least one of the contradictory statements is wrong. However, the contradiction doesn't establish which statement is wrong. Here, the argument concludes that the view poems can't be accurately paraphrased is false; it's equally likely that, instead, the view of the Critics that their paraphrases are accurate is false. In picking which statement is false, this argument ignores the possibility that the other contradictory statement is false and the one it reaches a conclusion about is true.

Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights that the argument establishes a contradiction but then picks which contradictory statement is false without providing a reason to rule it out instead of the other statement.

Key Takeaway:
When an argument dismisses a conclusion because the opposing point contradicts itself, there are two associated flaws. The first is an absence of evidence flaw—while a contradictory argument is invalid, that doesn't mean the conclusion is false. The second is ignoring a possibility—contradictory statements can't both be true, but based just on the contradiction it can't be established which statement is false.

For the latter, there's a similar situation—dueling experts. If there are two expert opinions that contradict each other, the argument will frequently be flawed in relying on one of the expert opinions without establishing that it's better than the other.

What ties these together? There are two options for what can be wrong, and the author picks one without establishing that to be the case.

Incorrect. The argument doesn't delve into the definition of paraphrase, instead using its common meaning throughout.