- Posts: 3
- Joined: Sep 09, 2025
- Wed Oct 29, 2025 1:59 pm
#121890
I feel like this was a questionably written question honestly.
The idea that it would have been a violation of etiquette is an extremely weak weakener, to the point where I would usually just toss it as irrelevant. Who cares if it violates etiquette? Especially in young people and artists, etiquette is often tossed aside. I see how it could weaken it, but I feel like the term "etiquette" is flimsy and subjective enough to make this not a true weakener.
(C), to me, seems to be an actual weakener. It points towards another potential explanation, that the artist may have just been a live model for the artist who depicted the scene.
Indeed, if someone tried to make the stimulus's argument to me, I could very well respond "actually, it wasn't uncommon for painters to use live models in depicting people in their paintings" and I'm pretty sure that rebuttal would be quite well understood. That said, I see how the phrase "not uncommon" isn't really strong enough to truly damage the argument, but I do think it opens up a clear alternative explanation.
I don't think (C) is a particularly good answer, but this question is one where I feel there are not really good answers, and (D) does not strike me as better than (C) in any appreciable way. (D) requires the assumption that young artists make attempts to avoid violating etiquette, which I'm not comfortable assuming. Not a well-written question, in my opinion.
The idea that it would have been a violation of etiquette is an extremely weak weakener, to the point where I would usually just toss it as irrelevant. Who cares if it violates etiquette? Especially in young people and artists, etiquette is often tossed aside. I see how it could weaken it, but I feel like the term "etiquette" is flimsy and subjective enough to make this not a true weakener.
(C), to me, seems to be an actual weakener. It points towards another potential explanation, that the artist may have just been a live model for the artist who depicted the scene.
Indeed, if someone tried to make the stimulus's argument to me, I could very well respond "actually, it wasn't uncommon for painters to use live models in depicting people in their paintings" and I'm pretty sure that rebuttal would be quite well understood. That said, I see how the phrase "not uncommon" isn't really strong enough to truly damage the argument, but I do think it opens up a clear alternative explanation.
I don't think (C) is a particularly good answer, but this question is one where I feel there are not really good answers, and (D) does not strike me as better than (C) in any appreciable way. (D) requires the assumption that young artists make attempts to avoid violating etiquette, which I'm not comfortable assuming. Not a well-written question, in my opinion.