Loading...
Reviewers of Orville Dennison's first book on medieval art have alleged a number of inaccuracies, but these charges are plainly absurd. Dennison has a long history of publishing magazine articles on art. No critic has found any errors in these publications. It is likely, then, that the critics of the book are wrong.
Which of the following would, if true, most seriously weaken the above argument?
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
| Reviewers of Orville Dennison's first book on medieval art have alleged a number of inaccuracies, but these charges are plainly absurd. |
|
| Dennison has a long history of publishing magazine articles on art. |
|
| No critic has found any errors in these publications. |
|
| It is likely, then, that the critics of the book are wrong. |
|
The argument starts by dismissing critics, then builds a case using Dennison's past magazine work as evidence. It shows his articles were never criticized for errors, then concludes that since his past work was accurate, current critics must be wrong about his book.
The critics who found inaccuracies in Dennison's medieval art book are likely wrong.
This is an argument from past performance - it assumes that because Dennison's magazine articles contained no errors, his book must also be error-free. The logic relies on the idea that past accuracy guarantees current accuracy, even though magazine articles and books might be very different in scope, complexity, or subject matter.
Weaken - we need to find information that would reduce our belief in the conclusion that the critics of Dennison's book are wrong
The argument makes specific claims about Dennison's magazine articles (no errors found) and uses this to defend against book criticism. We need to focus on what makes book writing different from magazine writing or what could make his past record irrelevant to current criticism
Look for ways to show that Dennison's clean magazine record doesn't actually tell us much about whether his book has errors. We can do this by finding differences between magazine articles and books, or by showing that his past work wasn't as error-free as it seemed, or by highlighting why this particular book might be different
Books on art tend to receive many more published reviews than do magazine articles on art. This significantly weakens the argument. If magazine articles receive far fewer reviews than books, then the fact that 'no critic has found any errors' in Dennison's articles becomes much less meaningful. With fewer people scrutinizing his magazine work, errors could easily have gone undetected. This makes his clean magazine record weak evidence for dismissing his book critics, since the book is likely getting much more thorough examination.
Magazine articles tend to go through less rigorous prepublication fact-checking than do most books.
This choice strengthens the argument rather than weakening it.
If magazine articles receive less rigorous fact-checking, yet Dennison’s magazine work still had no detected errors, this suggests his accuracy comes from his own carefulness, not just editorial oversight.
That makes it more likely that his book — which typically undergoes more rigorous fact-checking — is also accurate.
Therefore, Choice B reinforces the conclusion and cannot be the correct weaken answer.
Magazine articles often draw from books for factual information. This doesn't meaningfully impact the argument. The source of information for magazine articles doesn't tell us anything about whether Dennison's specific articles or book contain errors. This is irrelevant to comparing his past magazine performance with current book criticism.
Factual errors in books can be corrected more easily than errors in magazine articles. This doesn't weaken the conclusion that the critics are wrong. Even if book errors are easier to correct, this doesn't make it more likely that Dennison's book actually contains the errors that critics claim to have found.
Writings on medieval art appear more often in books than in magazines. This doesn't address whether Dennison's past accuracy in magazine articles is good evidence for dismissing his book critics. The frequency of medieval art writings in different formats is irrelevant to evaluating his track record or the validity of current criticism.