Critic: An art historian argues that because fifteenth-century European paintings were generally more planimetric (that is, two-dimensional with no attempt at suggesting depth) than were sixteenth-century paintings, fifteenth-century painters had a greater mastery of painting than did sixteenth-century painters. However, this conclusion is wrong. Fifteenth-century European painters did not have a greater mastery of painting, for the degree to which a painting is planimetric is irrelevant to the painter’s mastery.
The argument is flawed in that it
(A) rejects a position merely because the proponent of the position has other objectionable views
(B) illicitly relies on two different meanings of the term “mastery”
(C) takes a necessary condition for an argument’s being inadequate to be a sufficient condition for an argument’s being inadequate
(D) bases its conclusion on two claims that contradict each other
(E) rejects a position on the grounds that an inadequate argument has been made for it
A. The argument does not commit an ad hominem fallacy. An ad hominem occurs when someone attacks the person making an argument instead of addressing the argument itself—such as dismissing an art historian’s view because they “smell funny.” That type of reasoning isn’t present here.
B. There’s no flaw involving two distinct definitions of “mastery.” For example, confusing technical skill in painting with control over all painters would be such a flaw, but this argument doesn’t do that.
C. There is no mistaken reversal of sufficient and necessary conditions. For instance, saying someone’s hesitation proves an argument is wrong because they’d hesitate if it were wrong would be an error—but nothing like that appears here.
D. No contradiction is present. A contradiction would involve two mutually exclusive claims, like saying a painting is both the best in the world and almost as good as another. This doesn’t happen here.
E. Correct. The argument simply asserts that 15th-century painters were better. This is a straightforward evaluative position, not a logical flaw.
