PrepTest 120

Incorrect. The argument is about political action, not all action, so this answer is too broad. (The argument already established that abstract art can't spur political action.)

Incorrect. The argument is about the political significance of a certain category of art, not of people, so this answer is out of scope.

Incorrect. The conclusion is about politically significant art, not significant art, so this answer is incorrect.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen with Necessary Premise

Stimulus Summary:
Abstract paintings are nonrepresentational
Painting spurs political action → Represent social injustice in a recognizable way
Therefore - Abstract painting - not Politically significant

Answer Anticipation:
While less common than in Strengthen with Sufficient Premise questions, conditional logic will show up in Strengthen with Necessary Premise questions with some frequency. As such, when you saw that for one thing to happen, another thing "must" occur, you should have started to diagram that out.

When conditional logic is present in either of these question types, it's likely to fall into one of two general structures. Either several conditionals are presented, and there's a missing link in the chain that builds to the conclusion; or a single conditional is presented, and it's then (invalidly) applied to a specific instance, usually with a failure to fully establish the sufficient condition.

Here, the conditional has a necessary condition that isn't met by the specific situation. If we take the contrapositive of the conditional principle, it becomes:
not Represent social injustice in a recognizable way → not Spur political action

Since the argument establishes that abstract paintings are nonrepresentational, they can't possibly represent anything, let along social injustice. Therefore, unlike most arguments that try to apply a principle to a specific situation in an invalid manner, this one does meet a sufficient condition. The premises would justify a conclusion that abstract painting can't spur political action.

When the specific situation does meet a sufficient condition, then the argument is almost always flawed in the conclusion being a step past the necessary condition of the principle. Here, the principle allows a conclusion that abstract art can't spur political action, but it concludes that abstract art can't be politically significant. That assumes that to be politically significant, art must spur political action. Let's find an answer drawing that connection.

Answer Explanation:
This answer connects the conclusion justified by the premises to the conclusion. Abstract art is nonrepresentative which, according to the conditional premise, guarantees it can't spur political action, and this answer connects that to the conclusion that it's not politically significant. If paintings that fail to spur political action can be politically significant, then the argument falls apart as the premises don't justify the conclusion. This is the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
Questions that feature conditional logic tend to be flawed for one of three reasons:
(1) Illegal reversal/negations
(2) Gaps between chained conditionals (either between premises, or between the premises and conclusion)
Gaps between a conditional statement and the specific situation it's applied to

For Strengthen with Necessary (and Sufficient) Premise questions, you'll almost never have an instance of the first issue because the correct answer would then have to provide the correct conditional, and the LSAT just doesn't test that very often, if at all. However, you'll frequently see the latter two, and this question is an example of the third.

Incorrect. The conclusion is about political significance, not worth, so this answer is out of scope.