Some theorists and critics insist that no aesthetic evaluation of a work of art is sound if it is based...
GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions
Some theorists and critics insist that no aesthetic evaluation of a work of art is sound if it is based even in part on data about the cultural background of the artist. This opinion is clearly false. The only sound aesthetic evaluations of artists' works are those that take into account factors such as the era and the place of the artists' births, their upbringing and education, and the values of their societies—in sum, those factors that are part of their cultural background.
The above argument is most vulnerable to which of the following objections?
Passage Analysis:
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
| Some theorists and critics insist that no aesthetic evaluation of a work of art is sound if it is based even in part on data about the cultural background of the artist. |
|
| This opinion is clearly false. |
|
| The only sound aesthetic evaluations of artists' works are those that take into account factors such as the era and the place of the artists' births, their upbringing and education, and the values of their societies—in sum, those factors that are part of their cultural background. |
|
Argument Flow:
The author starts by presenting an opposing view (some experts say cultural background shouldn't be used), then directly contradicts it, and finally provides reasoning for why cultural background is actually essential.
Main Conclusion:
The opinion that aesthetic evaluations should not be based on cultural background data is clearly false.
Logical Structure:
This is a classic disagreement argument where the author counters an opposing view. The structure is: 'Others say X, but X is wrong because only Y works.' The argument relies on the premise that cultural factors are essential for sound evaluations to prove the experts' position is false.
Prethinking:
Question type:
Misc - This is asking about logical flaws or vulnerabilities in the argument's reasoning structure
Precision of Claims
The author makes an absolute claim using 'only' - stating that ONLY evaluations considering cultural background are sound, while rejecting ANY evaluation that uses cultural background is automatically unsound
Strategy
Look for logical flaws in how the argument is structured. The author is making a strong counter-claim but we need to identify weaknesses in their reasoning. Focus on whether the author's response actually addresses the original claim properly, whether there are logical gaps, or if the reasoning is flawed in some fundamental way
This identifies circular reasoning - where the argument assumes what it's trying to prove. Looking at our argument, the author claims the theorists are wrong because 'only' evaluations using cultural background are sound. But this statement itself assumes the conclusion that cultural background should be used in aesthetic evaluations. The author provides no independent evidence for why cultural background is essential - they simply assert it as fact to disprove the opposing view. This is exactly what presupposing the conclusion means. This is correct.
This would mean the evidence actually supports the opposing view rather than the author's position. However, the author's evidence about cultural factors being essential does support their conclusion that the theorists are wrong - it doesn't undermine it. The problem isn't that the evidence contradicts the conclusion, but rather that the evidence is circular.
Equivocal interpretation means using terms with multiple meanings inconsistently. We don't see this flaw here - terms like 'aesthetic evaluation' and 'cultural background' are used consistently throughout. The argument doesn't rely on shifting definitions of key terms.
This describes confusing correlation with causation or assuming intent from outcomes. Our argument doesn't discuss effects, intentions, or causal relationships. It's purely about what makes aesthetic evaluations sound, not about artists' intentions or the effects of their cultural background.
This suggests the argument wrongly assumes factual evidence can resolve value judgments. While the argument does involve evaluation (which could be seen as values-based), the core flaw isn't about mixing facts and values - it's about the circular structure of the reasoning itself.