Logical reasoning PrepTest 157 · Section 2 · Question 12

This doesn't match our anticipation that the correct answer will refer to the passage's "converse" flaw or an "illegal reversal." So, we can cross off (A) without thinking about it too deeply.

Besides, this answer choice refers to "circular reasoning." Circular reasoning occurs when the conclusion merely restates a premise. Arguments that rely on circular reasoning typically have this pattern on the LSAT: "X is true. We know this because, even when X doesn't appear to be true, X still must be true because X is always true."

The art student's argument doesn't rely on circular reasoning. The art student's premises are an "if-then" statement and a factual premise about the passionate responses provoked by a particular artist, and the conclusion asserts that the artist's work must be great. Therefore, the art student's conclusion is not a mere restatement of their premise.

This answer choice matches our anticipation that the correct answer will refer to the passage's "converse" flaw or an "illegal reversal." The art student indeed treats a condition necessary for having a certain quality (provoking a passionate response is necessary for an artwork's greatness) as if the condition must be sufficient for having that quality. We know the art student thinks provoking a passionate response is sufficient to conclude that an artwork is great because the art student argues that the passionate response provoked by Reilly's work is enough evidence to conclude that Reilly's work must be great. However, as we discussed in the Answer Anticipation section, Reilly's work may not be great, even if it produces a passionate response.

Because this answer choice closely matches our anticipated flaw, we can select (B) and give the remaining answer choices a quick once-over.

This doesn't match our anticipation that the correct answer will refer to the passage's "converse" flaw or an "illegal reversal." So, we can cross off (C) without giving it too much consideration.

Besides, this answer choice misdescribes the flaw in the art student's argument. The art student's general claim applies to all "great works of art." There's nothing in the argument that suggests Reilly's work may be "an atypical instance" of a great work of art. In fact, the issue is that we don't know whether Reilly's work is a great work of art. Rather than an atypical instance of this class, Reilly's work may not belong to the class in the first place.

This doesn't match our anticipation that the correct answer will refer to the passage's "converse" flaw or an "illegal reversal." So, we can cross off (D) without spending too much time thinking about it.

Besides, this answer choice misdescribes the art student's conclusion. Their conclusion does not derive a "generalization" about artists. The conclusion is just about one artist! And even if we interpret the "generalization" to refer to all of Reilly's artworks, the art student's conclusion does not base this generalization on "an insufficient number of instances." The art student's premise describes all of Reilly's "provocative work."

This doesn't match our anticipation that the correct answer will refer to the passage's "converse" flaw or an "illegal reversal." So, we can cross off (E) without hesitating.

Besides, this answer choice misdescribes the flaw in the art student's argument. Although the art student's conclusion expresses a value judgment (that Reilly's art is "great"), the art student's premises involve "statements about values." The "if-then" statement describes "[g]reat works of art." And its flipside ("if an artwork does not evoke passionate responses, then it is not great") would allow the art student to conclude that a specific work of art is not great, which would be a justifiable conclusion that expresses a value judgment.