Reviewer : The book Art's Decline argues that European painters today lack skills that were common among European painters of...

GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions

Source: Mock

Critical Reasoning

Misc.

EASY

...

Notes

Post a Query

Reviewer : The book Art's Decline argues that European painters today lack skills that were common among European painters of preceding centuries. In this the book must be right, since its analysis of 100 paintings, 50 old and 50 contemporary, demonstrates convincingly that none of the contemporary paintings are executed as skillfully as the older paintings.

Which of the following points to the most serious logical flaw in the reviewer's argument?

The paintings chosen by the book's author for analysis could be those that most support the book's thesis.

There could be criteria other than the technical skill of the artist by which to evaluate a painting.

The title of the book could cause readers to accept the book's thesis even before they read the analysis of the paintings that supports it.

The particular methods currently used by European painters could require less artistic skill than do methods used by painters in other parts of the world.

A reader who was not familiar with the language of art criticism might not be convinced by the book's analysis of the 100 paintings.

Solution

Passage Analysis:

Text from Passage	Analysis
The book Art's Decline argues that European painters today lack skills that were common among European painters of preceding centuries.	What it says: The book claims modern European painters aren't as skilled as painters from the past What it does: Sets up the book's main argument that we're about to examine What it is: Book's central claim
In this the book must be right, since its analysis of 100 paintings, 50 old and 50 contemporary, demonstrates convincingly that none of the contemporary paintings are executed as skillfully as the older paintings.	What it says: The reviewer agrees with the book because a study of 100 paintings (50 old, 50 new) shows all the old ones are better than all the new ones What it does: Provides the reviewer's reasoning for why the book's claim must be true What it is: Reviewer's conclusion with supporting evidence Visualization: Study Sample: 50 Old Paintings vs 50 Contemporary Paintings → Result: All 50 old paintings > All 50 contemporary paintings → Reviewer's conclusion: Book is right about skill decline

Argument Flow:

The reviewer starts by telling us what the book claims (painters today lack old skills), then immediately agrees with this claim based on one piece of evidence - a study of 100 paintings where all the old ones were better than all the new ones.

Main Conclusion:

The book Art's Decline is correct that European painters today lack skills that were common among European painters of past centuries.

Logical Structure:

The reviewer uses a single study (100 paintings comparison) as evidence to support a broad conclusion about all European painters across time periods. The logic assumes that 50 paintings can represent all contemporary European painters and that skill level hasn't changed among any modern painters.

Prethinking:

Question type:

Misc. - This is asking us to identify the most serious logical flaw in the reviewer's reasoning. We need to find what's wrong with how the reviewer drew their conclusion from the evidence.

Precision of Claims

The reviewer makes a sweeping claim about ALL European painters today vs ALL European painters of preceding centuries, but bases this on a very limited sample of 100 paintings (50 old, 50 contemporary).

Strategy

We need to identify the biggest problem with the reviewer's logic. The reviewer concludes that modern European painters lack skills compared to past painters based on comparing 50 old paintings to 50 contemporary paintings. We should look for issues like: sample problems (are these paintings representative?), comparison problems (are we comparing the right things?), or generalization problems (can we really conclude this about ALL painters?).

Answer Choices Explained

The paintings chosen by the book's author for analysis could be those that most support the book's thesis.

This identifies the most serious logical flaw - selection bias in the sample. If the book's author deliberately chose paintings that would support their predetermined conclusion (skilled old paintings vs. unskilled contemporary ones), then the 100-painting analysis becomes meaningless as evidence. The sample wouldn't represent the true skill levels of painters across time periods, making any broad conclusions about ALL European painters invalid. This strikes at the heart of the reviewer's reasoning.

There could be criteria other than the technical skill of the artist by which to evaluate a painting.

This points out that technical skill isn't the only way to evaluate art, but this doesn't address a flaw in the reviewer's logic. The argument is specifically about technical skill levels, so the existence of other evaluation criteria is irrelevant to whether the book's conclusion about skill is correct. This is a scope issue, not a logical flaw.

The title of the book could cause readers to accept the book's thesis even before they read the analysis of the paintings that supports it.

This suggests the book's title might bias readers, but this doesn't affect the logical validity of the reviewer's argument. Even if readers are predisposed to accept the thesis, the reviewer's reasoning stands or falls on its own merits. The title's influence on reader perception doesn't make the 100-painting analysis any less valid as evidence.

The particular methods currently used by European painters could require less artistic skill than do methods used by painters in other parts of the world.

This compares European painting methods to those in other parts of the world, which is completely outside the scope of the argument. The reviewer is only comparing European painters across different time periods, not to painters from other regions. This introduces an irrelevant comparison that doesn't address any flaw in the original reasoning.

A reader who was not familiar with the language of art criticism might not be convinced by the book's analysis of the 100 paintings.

This focuses on whether readers unfamiliar with art criticism would be convinced, but this addresses the persuasiveness of the presentation rather than the logical validity of the argument itself. Whether someone understands art criticism doesn't affect whether the 100-painting comparison actually supports the conclusion about painter skill levels.

Rate this Solution

Tell us what you think about this solution

...

Forum Discussions

Start a new discussion

Post

Previous Attempts

Loading attempts...