#15 - There is a popular view among literary critics that a

[Administrator]

Please post your questions below! Thank you!

[lathlee]

Hi. what kind of the reasoning flaw is made here? I couldn't figure this out. Since the correct answer D, it just means this flaw is general lack of relevant data. but i don't see how this can be applied, shouldn't circular or source argument flaw applies here?

[BostonLawGuy]

Hi. what kind of the reasoning flaw is made here? I couldn't figure this out. Since the correct answer D, it just means this flaw is general lack of relevant data. but i don't see how this can be applied, shouldn't circular or source argument flaw applies here?

I'm under the impression that the arguer, by rejecting one position, automatically assumes the other one is right. But he provides no justification, no evidence, no reason to make his conclusion.

An argument must have a premise (evidence) to support a conclusion. Simply rejecting one view is not putting forth evidence for a valid conclusion. The PowerScore chapter on Flaws describes this flaw. Lack of evidence of a claim does not invalidate it.

[James Finch]

Hi Boston Law Guy,

This is correct! The stimulus describes two premises given by literary critics that would seem to be in conflict, and then assumes one to be true and the other to be false without giving any evidence as to why that might be the case. From the information in the stimulus, it's entirely possible that poetry can't be accurately paraphrased, and the critics are wrong or lying about the accuracy of their own paraphrases. In order to conclude, as the stimulus does, that the critics are wrong about the inability to accurately paraphrase poetry, we would have to know that their paraphrases are actually accurate, not just claimed to be.

[ShannonOh22]

The explanations provided here for why D is correct are confusing to me...the stimulus states that the critics are the same group of people. "There is a popular view among literary critics...But these same critics hold that their own..." Wouldn't this be a source argument? The way you explained it above it sounds like a false dilemma...which I didn't see as a flaw here.

Can you please clarify? Thank you kindly!

[Adam Tyson]

The author here is not attacking the critics themselves, ShannonOh22. He is saying "they believe two things that cannot both be true - they are logically inconsistent beliefs." The author then concludes that the first of those two claims must be false, and in so doing he fails to consider that it could be the second belief that is the incorrect one and that perhaps the first belief is correct. It's not about who the critics are, but about what they believe to be true.

I see this as a type of evidence flaw, not so much as a false dilemma. We've seen this one with some frequency in recent years - the author simply declares one claim to be false on the grounds that it conflicts with another claim, but gives no reason to suppose that the second claim is true. It's a preference with zero evidence. Maybe a form of circular reasoning, perhaps, because it is based on a presumption about the truth of one of the claims? Regardless of what we call it, they key is to recognize why it's bad.

Here's an analogy: "My friends Jon and Dave were at a bar last night, and Jon says he ended up chatting with Reese Witherspoon and buying her a drink. Dave says that HE was the one who was hanging with Reese, and that Jon was nowhere around. Therefore, Jon was lying."

Maybe Dave is lying? Why should I believe Dave over Jon?

[yusrak]

Hi Powerscore,

Why is choice A wrong? Doesn't both choice A and choice D suggest that the argument lacks a premise for the conclusion that, "poetry cannot be accurately paraphrased is false." I do see that the author does deny one claim, "poetry cannot be accurately paraphrased" rather than denying that, "critics view their paraphrases are accurate." But even if the author denied the latter claim wouldn't the argument still be lacking a premise? Is choice A wrong because it suggests that a premise occurred when a premise did not actually occur? Doesn't "presupposes the falsity of the view that it sets out to refute" mean that the argument assumes "poetry cannot be accurately paraphrased" is false without establishing that it is false?

Also I have a clarification question for Adam's explanation above: doesn't answer choice A describe an argument of circular reasoning? Or does an argument of circular reasoning have to assume that the premise is true rather than false?

Thanks,
Yusra

[Adam Tyson]

Answer A does indeed describe Circular Reasoning, Yusra. A circular argument is one in which the author provides no evidence in support of their claim other than to restate that claim. But in this case, there IS evidence in the form of the critics saying that they have accurately paraphrased some poems. Since there is some evidence offered, it is not just a presupposition that the opposing view is false. It is preferring one view over another when it is entirely possible that the first view is the correct one, or that both are incorrect.