PrepTest 135

Incorrect. The argument doesn't reach a conclusion about the public judging the museum, so this principle is out of scope.

Incorrect. The conclusion of the argument is that the stamp shouldn't be displayed, not that the museum should display it in a protective case, so this answer is out of scope.

Incorrect. If anything, the argument suggests that red ink shouldn't be used on items that are going to be exposed to ultraviolet light. But that's an aside meant to show that displaying the stamp would damage it—the mechanism by which it's damaged isn't important to the logic of the argument.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen (Principle)

Stimulus Summary:
Displaying a rare stamp will damage it, so it should not be displayed even though that means people can't see it.

Answer Anticipation:
This argument falls into a common pattern of reasoning on the LSAT—balancing two considerations. Here, the considerations are damage to the stamp on one hand, and allowing the public a chance to see it on the other. Here, the argument concludes that the prior consideration wins out—since displaying it would damage the stamp, it should not be displayed, even though people then won't be able to see it.

However, the argument never establishes that that consideration should win out—it just brings up the two considerations and then concludes that one of them is more important. Therefore, the correct answer here should highlight that preventing damage/preserving rare artifacts is more important than allowing the public to see it.

Answer Explanation:
This answer establishes that the damage to the stamp is the winning consideration. Since displaying this stamp would damage it, this principle justifies the conclusion that it shouldn't be displayed, and so the stimulus conforms to this principle.

Key Takeaway:
When an argument raises two considerations and "picks" one, make sure that it establishes a reason for picking it, and that that reason is definitive. Otherwise, the argument is flawed and the correct answer should address this failure to establish the criteria used to select between the two.

Incorrect. Education is out of scope of the argument.