Examkin

Question

Difficulty: MediumArgument by Analogy

Philosopher: Evaluating a literary work by examining the moral character of its author is as absurd as evaluating a mathematical proof by examining the moral character of the mathematician who derived it. A mathematical proof's validity relies entirely on its internal logical coherence, which is independent of the mathematician's personal virtues. Therefore, the aesthetic merit of a literary work must similarly be assessed independently of the author's personal character.

Which one of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the philosopher's argument?

  1. It overlooks a potentially relevant difference between the criteria for mathematical validity and the criteria for literary merit.Answer
  2. B
    It equivocates by using the concept of 'character' in two fundamentally different senses.
  3. C
    It misidentifies a subsidiary conclusion regarding mathematical proofs as the primary conclusion of the argument.
  4. D
    It treats a condition that is sufficient to guarantee the aesthetic merit of a literary work as a condition that is necessary for it.
  5. E
    It infers a conclusion about all literary works based on a premise that applies only to a restricted subset of mathematical proofs.

Answer

The correct answer is the option stating that the argument overlooks a potentially relevant difference between the criteria for mathematical validity and the criteria for literary merit.
The correct answer accurately identifies the classic weakness of an argument by analogy: the presence of a relevant disanalogy. The philosopher assumes that because the creator's morality is irrelevant in math, it must be irrelevant in literature. However, mathematical proofs are entirely abstract and logical, whereas literary works frequently deal with human experiences, emotions, and moral themes. Because the nature of the two fields is fundamentally different, comparing them to prove a point about moral character is a flawed analogy.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the argument's core structure and main conclusion.
The main conclusion is that the aesthetic merit of a literary work must be assessed independently of the author's personal character.
Finding the conclusion helps determine what the premises are trying to prove.
2
Identify the method of reasoning used in the premises.
The philosopher uses an argument by analogy, comparing the evaluation of literary works to the evaluation of mathematical proofs.
Understanding how the conclusion is supported is necessary to evaluate the argument's validity.
3
Evaluate the strength of the analogy to find the logical flaw.
The analogy is weak because mathematics is purely logical and abstract, whereas literature often explores human morality and ethics. Therefore, the author's moral character might be relevant to literature in a way it is not to mathematics.
Arguments by analogy are most vulnerable when there is a significant, relevant difference (disanalogy) between the two things being compared.

Key Concept

Identifying flaws in arguments by analogy (False Analogy)
Rate this question

Topics

Argument by Analogy

More questions from this topic