Logical reasoning PrepTest 102 · Section 4 · Question 10

Incorrect. Whether there are other options doesn't speak to whether this specific option would work, so this answer is out of scope.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Weaken

Stimulus Summary:
Goal - Refurbish galleries
Approach - Sell off some works
Curator - The gallery has some inferior works by Renoir and Cezanne
Conclusion - Some works can be sold without hurting the collection's quality

Answer Anticipation:
As with all Weaken questions, we should start by identifying the flaw in the argument so that we can find an answer that addresses it.

Here, there are a few elements we should focus on.

First, the argument relies on the opinion of the Curator. While a museum's Curator can definitely have valid opinions on the quality of works, in an area that involves a lot of subjectivity, there's reason to not take that opinion at face value. The argument assumes that the Curator's assessment of these works is accurate, so any answer suggesting her assessment is wrong would weaken it.

And, on a similar note, the Curator's argument is self-contained—they're inferior works "and so" add nothing to the collection. That's a pretty extreme conclusion. Maybe the works are inferior, but they show the growth of the artists in question, and as such do add to the collection's quality. This assumption that an inferior work cannot add to quality is a second flaw in the argument, and any answer suggesting that they can would weaken it.

And, finally, the last one requires us to know a little bit about some grammar patterns on the exam. When an argument raises examples as premises—here, the lesser works of Renoir and Cezanne in the collection—it's important that the conclusion tie into them. Here, the conclusion is about selling "some works" from the collection (the Board's recommendation), not these works that were just referenced. If the Board decides to sell better works so as to raise more funds, then that could detract from the collection's quality. This is a third assumption, so any answer suggesting the Board would move to sell other works that aren't inferior would weaken the argument.

That's a lot of potential answers! As such, let's head to the answer choices ASAP to give us plenty of time to address them.

Answer Explanation:
This answer suggests that inferior works can add to the quality of a collection by showing the growth of artists such as Renior and Cezanne, and so selling off those works could detract from that quality. As such, it undermines the Curator's position, which is relied on to justify the conclusion. This answer therefore weakens the argument.

Key Takeaway:
Note how we didn't change much up between the last question and this one. While Weaken and Strengthen with Necessary Premise questions are different question types, they're both going to have answers that address assumptions in the argument. If you come across a two-question stimulus where the question types are related like this, reuse your work!

Incorrect. If anything, this answer reinforces the Curator's position on them, which is a key part of the argument. That would support the conclusion.

Incorrect. Inflation in the art market is out of scope. The argument only assumes that there are inferior works that don't add to the collection's quality, and those would be sold—not how much they'd sell for, or what would happen to the overall art market.

Incorrect. The only way that this answer is in scope is if the Board can't raise enough money by selling the lesser works and so sells the best works. However, there's no indication how much money is needed or how much the inferior works will sell for, so this answer is out of scope.