Logical reasoning PrepTest 150 · Section 2 · Question 14

Incorrect. This answer is the inverse of the conclusion, and it doesn't draw a new connection between the anger-inducing art and a lack of concern for beauty.

Incorrect. If this answer were true, then art concerned with something other than beauty (such as making the viewer angry) can't be legitimate art, thus undercutting the argument.

Incorrect. This answer choice weakens the argument by connecting anger-inducing art to a concern for beauty, even if only a secondary one.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen with Sufficient Premise

Stimulus Summary:
It's valid for an artist to try to make people angry. If a work of legitimate art aims for anger, it also calls for real-world intervention. Therefore, some legitimate art doesn't have a concern for beauty.

Answer Anticipation:
The conclusion here brings concern with beauty up as something missing from at least some legitimate art, but it never this lack of concern in a premise. The only time beauty is mentioned in a premise is when the artist acknowledges most art is concerned with beauty.

The correct answer, then, will connect this other type of art discussed in the argument with a lack of concern for beauty. This other type of art is intended to make the viewer angry, and to cause intervention. The correct answer will connect at least one of these two features to a lack of concern for beauty.

Answer Explanation:
Rephrased, this answer states that any work of art calling for intervention is not concerned with beauty. Since art intended to make someone angry has this feature, it's established that some art (this anger-inducing art) isn't concerned with beauty, justifying the conclusion.

Key Takeaway:
In Strengthen with Sufficient Premise questions, look for a new term in a conclusion. Here, the LSAT does a good job of making it harder to spot by discussing a similar term in a premise, but that premise is about art concerned with beauty, and the conclusion is about art unconcerned with beauty, which is a completely different set of art.

Incorrect. This answer doesn't connect the art calling for intervention to beauty, which is the missing connection. Even if intervention-inducing art is the only legitimate art, it could still be concerned with beauty.