- Mon Apr 29, 2024 10:59 am
#106213
Hey Claire,
The philosopher says that just because two people may have differing opinions on the value of a painting or sculpture, there is no valid objective standard for determining value.
The flaw in this argument is thinking that just because two people have different opinions, there is no way to objectively determine value. Because this is an art example, we might be tempted to believe this, but consider, for example, if this example was talking about two parents who disagreed over how to treat their child's fever. Would we ever say that just because these two individuals (who may or may not have medical degrees) disagree there is no objective standard to determine treatment for a fever? No.
Answer choice (A) is incorrect because the author does actually try and demonstrate that there is truth to this adage- they use the premise of the two people disagreeing over value to prove the adage is true.
Answer (B) is true, but this is not a flaw in the argument. The author could add in that literature and poetry also experience different value interpretations, and the argument would still be flawed.
Answer (C) is out of scope of the question, since we are talking about "some kinds of art" here - in particular, painting and sculpture. This may be true for nonvisual art, but it has no bearing on the argument.
Answer (D) is the correct answer - maybe people disagreeing about value are doing so only because their criteria is whether or not they find the painting or sculpture aesthetically pleasing - that is objective. But an art critic may employ objective standards, such as the age or techniques used in the art, to assess value.
Answer (E), if true, would strengthen the argument overall by showing that even experts, trained to assess value, disagree because there are no objective standards for determining artistic value, therefore answer choice (E) cannot be a flaw.
