PrepTest 122

Incorrect. Yvette never claims that there isn't a problem with thangkas, so this answer is incorrect.

Incorrect. Neither speaker discusses the sources of the information they're presenting, so this answer is out of scope.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument/Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed/Flawed

Question Type:
Methods of Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
X: Problem — Tourists are leading Nepalese artists to make bad thangkas, killing the artform.
Solution — There should be a ban on selling them to tourists.

Y: Your solution will result in the problem you identify getting worse by preventing young artists from making thangkas.

Answer Anticipation:
When there's a two—speaker Methods of Reasoning question, it's important to note what parts of the initial argument the second speaker agrees with, and how she takes issue with other elements.

Xavier here identifies a problem and then puts forward a solution to that problem. Yvette doesn't disagree that there is a problem (though she also doesn't explicitly agree that there is). However, she does say that Xavier's solution will have consequences he doesn't discuss (young artists failing to go into thangka—making), and those consequences will result in the outcome he's trying to avoid.

The correct answer, therefore, should highlight that Yvette shows that Xavier's solution will result in the very outcome he's trying to avoid.

Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights Yvette's method of responding to Xavier's argument. He suggests banning the sale of thangkas to tourists to save the artform; she points out that doing so will cause it to decay and die.

Key Takeaway:
Argument forms—here, the Problem/Solution form—are always going to help frame your understanding of a question when they're present. There are a few that repeat on the LSAT frequently (problem/solution; goal/approach; opposing point/rebuttal being three very common ones), so knowing how the LSAT structures questions around them is very helpful to answering questions relying on them quickly!

Incorrect. Yvette doesn't use an analogy—she speaks to the same situation, just a different aspect of it.

Incorrect. Yvette brings up her own evidence, she doesn't attack Xavier's. She may very well accept that the sale of thangkas to tourists is resulting in symbolic inaccuracies, just that banning that practice will have worse consequences.