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 ["takes a necessary condition for an argument's being inadequate to be a sufficient condition for an argument's being inadequate", 'rejects a position merely because the proponent of the position has other objectionable views', 'bases its conclusion on two claims that contradict each other', 'rejects a position on the grounds that an inadequate argument has been made for it']