Passage Summary: There are only two ways a painting can be good: how it looks or what it says. Since we can't explain how 'how it looks' works, we have to conclude it's 'what it says.'

Conclusion: The aesthetic value of a painting must be derived from its meaning.

Reasoning: There are only two possible sources of value—formal qualities or meaning—and since there is no good explanation for how formal qualities provide value, it must be the meaning.

Analysis: This argument commits a classic 'lack of evidence' flaw by assuming that because one theory lacks a 'compelling general account,' it must be false, thereby validating the only other option. It also relies on a potentially false dichotomy, assuming no other sources of value exist. When looking for a parallel, seek out a choice that presents two options, dismisses one simply because it is poorly understood or explained, and then concludes the other must be the truth. It is the 'we don't know how A works, so B is the winner' structure.