Q20 - S.R. Evans: A few critics

[noah]

What a fun question!

Our job is to find a flaw in the argument. S.R. Evan's conclusion is that certain critics' judgments should be rejected. Why? Because those critics are not great poets (Evans says "true"), and only true poets can tell if poetry is great. How does Evans know that the critics are not great poets? Because, S.R. Evans explains, she (?) does not find their work to be great.

(BTW, I'm using "great" and "bad" instead of "true", as it's easier to digest the argument that way.)

What a strange argument! It would be valid if we knew for sure that Evans herself is a true poet. We could then apply the principle -- that good poets can tell if a poet is good -- allowing us to trust her judgment of poetry, and then when she tells us the critics have bad poetry, we would believe her, and we would know that those wannabe poet/critics are not qualified to critique poetry (since only true poets can). However, if it turns out that Evans is a crappy poet, then why would we believe her assessment of the critics' poems? And so those critics might actually be great poets, and thus they might be qualified to judge Evans' work (as crappy).

(A) explains this problem with the argument. Evans assumes she herself is a great poet, since otherwise why would she suggest we should accept her assessment of the critics?

(B) is incorrect as there is no distinction made between critics and poets that is relevant to the argument.
(C) is out of scope -- there is no discussion of "the standing of a poet."
(D) is similar to (B) in that it refers to a distinction that is not relevant.
(E) is out of scope - "improve their poetry"?

If a diagram would help:

The argument is: Critics write bad poetry --> critics are not great poet --> critics not qualified to say my poetry sucks

But "Critics write bad poetry", according to the principle stated (judge poetry --> great poet), requires that Evans is a great poet, which is the big IF (assumption) of this argument.

[soyeonjeon]

Why would E be incorrect? I only find "never learn to improve their poetry" to be problematic since that is not necessarily true, but otherwise, I do not see why E would be incorrect.

[noah]

Why would E be incorrect? I only find "never learn to improve their poetry" to be problematic since that is not necessarily true, but otherwise, I do not see why E would be incorrect.

Does the argument lead to the conclusion that poets can never learn to improve their poetry?

(E) suggests it does, and if it doesn't, then how can (E) be a valid criticism of the argument?

[redcobra21]

Thanks for the great post, Noah! That helped out a lot.

I just had one quick follow-up question. I think what tripped me up with this question was the answer choice "presupposes what it sets out to conclude." I usually take this to mean circular reasoning, but I wasn't really sure that the flaw with this argument was circular reasoning (SR presupposes that he is a true poet, but I thought that the conclusion was that the critics' judgment should be rejected, not that he was therefore a true poet). Could you clarify if you get a chance or let me know if I am seeing this wrong?

Thanks again!

[noah]

Thanks for the great post, Noah! That helped out a lot.

I just had one quick follow-up question. I think what tripped me up with this question was the answer choice "presupposes what it sets out to conclude." I usually take this to mean circular reasoning, but I wasn't really sure that the flaw with this argument was circular reasoning (SR presupposes that he is a true poet, but I thought that the conclusion was that the critics' judgment should be rejected, not that he was therefore a true poet). Could you clarify if you get a chance or let me know if I am seeing this wrong?

Thanks again!

Good question.

Here, we can say either that S.R. Evans is assuming herself to be a poet or that the critics are not true poets. The conclusion is indeed that the judgments should be rejected, and to get there we have to assume that S.R. Evans is a true poet (based on the principle) and thus that those judgments should be rejected, since those judgments say that she's not a poet, which would mean she couldn't say whether the critics are true poets are not.

I'm dizzy!

[jones.mchandler]

What a fun question!

Our job is to find a flaw in the argument. S.R. Evan's conclusion is that certain critics' judgments should be rejected. Why? Because those critics are not great poets (Evans says "true"), and only true poets can tell if poetry is great. How does Evans know that the critics are not great poets? Because, S.R. Evans explains, she (?) does not find their work to be great.

(BTW, I'm using "great" and "bad" instead of "true", as it's easier to digest the argument that way.)

What a strange argument! It would be valid if we knew for sure that Evans herself is a true poet. We could then apply the principle -- that good poets can tell if a poet is good -- allowing us to trust her judgment of poetry, and then when she tells us the critics have bad poetry, we would believe her, and we would know that those wannabe poet/critics are not qualified to critique poetry (since only true poets can). However, if it turns out that Evans is a crappy poet, then why would we believe her assessment of the critics' poems? And so those critics might actually be great poets, and thus they might be qualified to judge Evans' work (as crappy).

(A) explains this problem with the argument. Evans assumes she herself is a great poet, since otherwise why would she suggest we should accept her assessment of the critics?

(B) is incorrect as there is no distinction made between critics and poets that is relevant to the argument.
(C) is out of scope -- there is no discussion of "the standing of a poet."
(D) is similar to (B) in that it refers to a distinction that is not relevant.
(E) is out of scope - "improve their poetry"?

If a diagram would help:

The argument is: Critics write bad poetry --> critics are not great poet --> critics not qualified to say my poetry sucks

But "Critics write bad poetry", according to the principle stated (judge poetry --> great poet), requires that Evans is a great poet, which is the big IF (assumption) of this argument.

I have a question about why answer choice C is incorrect.

You claim that it is out of scope because there is "no discussion of the standing of a poet." However, there are numerous examples of flaw questions where the correct answer choice contains language that is not contained within the stimulus, yet still correctly identifies the flaw.

It seems to me that "standing of a poet" is a term that is within the scope of the stimulus--the "standing" being whether or not someone is a "true poet." Dismissing that phrase ("standing of a poet") just does not seem justified.

Rather, it seems that the answer choice is incorrect because there is, in fact, no implicit claim contained within the stimulus that implies that a poet can be judged independently of their poetry.

It seems that principle in the stimulus relies on judging whether or not someone is a true poet by their poetry--or, at least, it does not seem to be implying that poets can be judged outside of their poetry.

I'm wondering is this line of thinking is productive, or if I'm off on the wrong track.

[maryadkins]

Rather, it seems that the answer choice is incorrect because there is, in fact, no implicit claim contained within the stimulus that implies that a poet can be judged independently of their poetry.

It seems that principle in the stimulus relies on judging whether or not someone is a true poet by their poetry--or, at least, it does not seem to be implying that poets can be judged outside of their poetry.

Yes, good. I like this analysis. On the right track!

[JeremyK460]

analogy argument:
one can determine whether another is athletic and dedicated only if they themselves are athletic and dedicated

a few NBA players determined that i'm not dedicated to the art of basketball and that i'm not athletic

but i know those NBA players aren't athletic and dedicated

so whatever those NBA players said about me should be rejected

deductions:
if i determine that NBA players aren't athletic and dedicated, then, by way of the argument's principle used to justify its conclusion, i've committed myself to the belief that these NBA players aren't able to make such determinations

my argument presupposes that these NBA players can't make such determinations
my argument sets out to conclude that such determinations shouldn't be accepted
and since their determinations shouldn't be accepted, i've committed myself to the belief that those NBA players shouldn't have made such determinations to begin with

i've circled back to the premise
and my premise states that those NBA players have failed to meet the guideline requirements (being athletic and dedicated), thus failing the principle (that one is able to make any such determinations)

so the argument presupposes what it set out to conclude