Why (C) is right: part-to-whole reasoning
A Flaw explanation from our free library. The question below is original, written for this page. Then the full breakdown: why the right answer is right, and why each wrong answer is wrong.
The question
Every sentence of Alvarez's new novel is beautifully written. It follows that the novel as a whole must be a masterpiece.
The argument is flawed because it
- judges the novel by a standard the argument never states.
- confuses a masterpiece with a bestseller.
- assumes that what is true of each part must be true of the whole. Correct
- relies on a definition of 'masterpiece' that no reader would accept.
- ignores the possibility that a novel can be beautifully written yet dull.
Why (C) is correct
Beautiful sentences are parts. A novel is a whole. Qualities of parts do not always transfer to the whole: every brick in a wall can be light while the wall itself is heavy.
The argument needs an extra step, the claim that beautiful parts always make a beautiful whole, and it never defends that step. Choice (C) names the move directly.
Why the wrong answers are wrong
(A) Reversed
The standard, beautiful writing, is stated right in the premise. This answer gets the argument backwards by claiming a standard was never given.
(B) Out of scope
Bestsellers are never mentioned. The argument is about quality, not sales, so this brings in a topic the argument never touched.
(D) True but irrelevant
The argument never defines 'masterpiece.' The flaw is the part-to-whole jump, not the meaning of a word.
(E) Half-right
This points at a possible counterexample, but it names a different objection. The flaw is the part-to-whole move itself, not a missing counterexample.
Last updated October 12, 2026